Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Departmental Staff

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many established civil servants there are in his Department dealing with regional financial assistance to industry; and what were the figures for the same period in 1987, showing separately in both cases the numbers on temporary transfer (a) from and (b) to that division.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): On 1 July this year there were 86 established civil servants dealing with regional financial assistance. This compares with 80 on 1 July 1987. In neither case were there any staff transferred temporarily from or to the division concerned.

Mr. Morgan: Given the announcement about the future of the Rover car pressings factory at Llanelli this morning and the loss of 900 jobs there, does the Secretary of State agree that he has grossly underestimated the demand and the need for greater concentration on regional assistance to industry in Wales? Does he agree also that he must abandon all plans to start dispersing civil servants from the Welsh Office industry department later this year?

Mr. Walker: I have no such plans. All the staff at the industry department are fully employed and work a great deal of overtime as a result of the substantial number of applications for regional aid that they are processing. I am delighted to say that that will continue. I regret the announcement of any future closure. I hope that the positive approach to regional policy that we are pursuing will assist in finding many more new jobs.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: With Wales becoming an increasingly attractive place in which to invest, does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of applications for regional assistance is likely to continue to increase? Will he assure me that he will continue to strive to reduce the time spent in processing each application?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Applications for regional development grant, for example, are being processed at twice the rate of a year ago. There has been a great improvement. We shall ensure that every endeavour is made to process all applications as quickly as possible.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I say nuts to the Secretary of State—especially pistachio nuts? Does he know that the Firegreen company has applied to the Welsh Office for a grant, which may lead in the end to 300 jobs, and certainly

over 100, in my constituency at Hawarden'? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to examine the application that has been made? Will he speed up the making of his decision so that the prospect of jobs might be realised?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will understand that I cannot comment in detail on a particular application. Queries and inquiries are taking place. I realise the importance of the application, and it is receiving careful consideration in my Department, which is in touch with the firm concerned.

Ministerial Visits

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for business since he took office as Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: Four.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his achievements in securing jobs for Wales and in projecting a virile and energetic profile of Wales throughout the world are universally admired throughout Wales, and that the admiration is shared by many Labour-controlled councils? There is universal admiration, with the possible exception of two or three unreconstructed Labour Members.

Mr. Walker: The progress is exceedingly good. Overseas investment this year is already more than the record which was set last year. I hope that this progress will continue. I am pleased to say that in the past few days a major new investment from Germany has been announced.

Mr. Page: The House knows that whenever my right hon. Friend travels abroad he enhances the image of the Principality. Is he aware that he may be asked to reciprocate and to receive visitors? Will he guarantee that his officials will keep a welcome in the valleys for any visiting minor politician and ensure that he will not be held at gunpoint and sworn at?

Mr. Walker: I assure the House that the hospitality of the Welsh Office is total and that no such incidents will take place.

National Health Service

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the National Health Service in Wales in the light of the increasing average age of the population.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Grist): We shall continue our successful programme of improving the National Health Service to provide the people of Wales generally with the best care possible from the record levels of resources that we are making available.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that a twin crisis is approaching that will peak in 1991, when we shall see a 9 per cent. increase over 1986 in the numbers aged 65 years and over, combined with the lowest figure for those aged between 50 years and 65 years, who provide the majority of family and voluntary carers? Will the Minister promise that Welsh area health authorities will be adequately funded for that dual crisis? Will he give us, for a start, a


guarantee that every health authority area will be adequately funded to enable it to meet the nurses' pay award? Will he confirm, or deny, the figures that have been quoted for the shortfall in Wales?

Mr. Grist: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I assure him that the funding of the Health Service will continue to be at the correct and proper level, as we have assured since we came to power. In response to the question about nurses' pay, we will have to wait and see precisely what demands are made when the regrading structure has been carried out.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the county with the projected greatest increase in the number of elderly people is Gynedd, not only because of a natural increase, but because of a movement of retired people into private homes who, as they get older, may well bring additional pressure on the hospitals? In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that any consideration of the future of the hospitals in Gwynedd, particularly in Portmadoc and Caernarfon, will be part of a coherent long-term strategy and not an ad hoc reaction to short-term cash shortages?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on the particular hospitals that he has named. However, the fact that Gwynedd has an aging population is appreciated and taken into consideration in the various formulae for health authorities. This of course rather begs the question that all of us here are likely to fall in the next century into the age groups that we are now discussing. We should bear that mind.

Mr. Foot: Leaving aside any invidious matters about age groups, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the latest proposals put forward by the Gwent area health authority will be subject to genuine consultation with all the parties concerned, that the Welsh Office will listen carefully to all the representations and that if those representations point to the fact that there should be a very considerable increase in funding in Wales, the Welsh Office will carry that message back to the Government?

Mr. Grist: I guarantee that all consultations carried out by the Welsh Office are carried out in a genuine, full and open fashion.

Mr. Marlow: If a patient were to present himself to the Health Service in Wales with steam coming out of his ears, could my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that there would be facilities for dealing with that complaint? Also, if anybody aspiring for a position of leadership in Wales or outside Wales were unable to control his temper, can my hon. Friend confirm that facilities exist where that person could get the necessary treatment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Paul Murphy.

Rating Reform

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any representations from Welsh businesses in connection with the implementation of the proposed unified business rate.

Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the deep unpopularity of the proposed business rate in Wales is due largely to the fact that it will mean an increase in the

commercial rate and because it threatens the vital link between local authorities and local industries, which is a major factor in determining industrial investment in Wales.

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that of the 11 business organisations consulted, nine were in favour and only two against.

Mr. Flynn: The result of the changes will be less accountability to Welsh councils, because up to 80 per cent. of the money received by Welsh councils will be determined centrally. How does that make Welsh local authorities more accountable?

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman would like less given centrally and more taken locally, I note his proposal.

Hospitals

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals in Wales have (a) been closed and (b) been opened since 1979; and what is the net loss of hospital beds in that period.

Mr. Grist: Twenty-three National Health Service hospitals in Wales closed between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1987 and nine opened. The net loss of hospital beds in that period was 2,544, of which almost two thirds—1,690—were for people with a mental handicap or mental illness, in line with our policy that services should be developed in the community so that such people may lead as normal a life as possible.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister not ashamed of those figures, of 2,500 beds lost, and of fewer hospital beds in Wales today than when the National Health Service was formed in 1947? May I ask him about Mynydd Mawr hospital, which is just outside my constituency? Part of East Dyfed health authority's proposals for modernising Llanelli hospital include closing Mynydd Mawr hospital, with a loss of 58 beds for elderly people. Does the Minister not realise that cottage hospitals are much needed and wanted? Why is it that when it comes to hospital modernisation, the Government are willing to put up with certain losses of hospital beds?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal he mentioned is purely the responsibility of the local health authority at the moment, which sees it in connection with the proposed expansion of phase 2 of the new Llanelli hospital. Clearly, that is not something on which I can comment at present. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, since 1967—for the past 20 years—there has been a fall in the number of staffed beds in Wales, as the policy of closing beds to keep people in the community has been common to both sides of the House.

Mrs. Clywd: Does the Minister not realise that the nine area health authorities have already said that if he is unable to fund the nurses' pay award in full they will be between £8 million and £10 million short? Where does the Minister expect them to find that money? Where are they to get it? Will that shortfall mean further ward closures and longer waiting lists? Will he tell the House?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Lady mistook what I first said. I said nothing to the effect that we are not going to fund the nurses' pay award.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that there are 580 people waiting for ENT operations in Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr, alone, and that 80 per cent. of them are children? Is he aware of the distress caused to both children and their parents, who are now being driven to pay for private treatment—often to the consultants who are at the hospital? Does he not think that that is scandalous? Is it not time that he took action?

Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking of his own particular hospital, he will be aware that matters there are under investigation by the hospital's own authorities. My Department is keeping a close eye on those investigations.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that, as I have said on a number of occasions, each advance in medical science may increase the length of some waiting lists by enhancing the demand?

Mr. Grist: That is true. Fifteen years ago one would not have had a waiting list for hip operations, because the operating method was unknown them.

Mentally-Ill Patients

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of mentally-ill patients in Wales who have spent more than three months in (a) mental hospitals and (b) psychiatric wards in general hospitals.

Mr. Grist: On 5 April 1987, the latest date for which this information is available, there were 2,680 patients in mental illness hospitals and units in Wales who had been resident for more then three months. Equivalent information is not available centrally in respect of patients cared for in general hospitals.

Mr. Wardell: Does the Minister accept that Wales has one of the worst statistical records for the percentage of mentally-ill patients who are treated in general hospitals' psychiatric wards, as opposed to hospitals for the mentally ill in the Principality? The World Health Organisation has clearly pointed out that fact. What measures is the Minister taking to correct that imbalance and to remove the stigma that so many of our people suffer by being treated in mental] illness hospitals? For example, in West Glamorgan there is not a single bed in a psychiatric general hospital for the treatment of the mentally ill.

Mr. Grist: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, unfortuntely, mental illness still carries with it considerable stigma. That must change if we are to make a success of developing those locally based services of which I spoke earlier. That is our determination, and I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister share our concern that the poll tax may be the deciding factor in forcing families no longer to accommodate mentally-ill members of their own family, thus not only breaking up families, but increasing the burden on our psychiatric hospitals? How does the Minister reconcile the increased burden of the poll tax with the Government's professed aim of keeping mentally-ill people in the community?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that the sort of people of whom he speaks will be disabled and therefore will not pay the poll tax.

Mr. John: Does the Minister recognise that we all share the desire for a number of people in mental hospitals to be discharged into the community, but that that is not a cheap option? Can he tell me how much has been paid for the care and support of such people within the community following the Government's initiative, and how many places have been created within the community as a result of that initiative?

Mr. Grist: I am not able to give the exact figures, but the hon. Gentleman is right: it is not a cheap option. According to the figures that I have, we are spending some £110 million a year on mental illness services, £65 million of which goes on the nine large hospitals in Wales.

Sport and Recreation

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for private management of sports grounds, leisure and recreation facilities, in so far as they affect (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

Mr. Grist: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 1 July.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Is he aware that the average deficit for a swimming pool in the Principality is £200,000? Attempting to make a profit in those circumstances is likely to mean having to cut staff or otherwise risk the safety of the pool's users. Has the Minister taken that into account?

Mr. Grist: Certainly. All safety measures will have to be maintained by anyone who takes on a contract to run a swimming pool. That is absolute an in law.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend watch the position with some care? Is he aware that there is legitimate concern in many quarters about the possible consequences of privatising the sports centres, which could result in the introduction of fruit machines and other such undesirable intrusions into what should be a public amenity?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the management of these facilities will be under the control of the local authorities. People have not understood that, for instance, pricing and admission policies will also be something that the local authorities can lay down at the outset.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister recognise that we are probably unanimous in the House in our deep concern at the exessive drinking, drug taking, vandalism and hooliganism among the young? Does he agree that there are enormous social gains to be made if, by providing positive activities for the young, we can reduce any of those crucial problems?
Does the Minister accept in this context that merely fiddling with the management of existing facilities is irrelevant to, and a diversion from, the real problem, which is the need to provide more resources and facilities that are directly relevant to the needs of the young? What meaningful proposals has he to make?

Mr. Grist: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice, for instance, the sprouting


around Wales of enormous numbers of leisure centres, which are a very new development. They will remain available, and the pricing and admission policies will remain in the hands of the local authorities when they lay down the contracts. Those who run such facilities will have an absolute incentive to persuade as many people as possible to take advantage of them, whereas at present they have no such incentive.

Housing

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to improve the quality and quantity of housing for rent in Wales at affordable prices; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: The Government are seeking to improve the quantity and quality of housing available for rent principally by taking action to stimulate the development of the private sector, and by increasing the investment in housing association schemes.
We are also taking steps to improve the management of rented accommodation in the public sector and providing new safeguards for private sector tenants against harassment.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the private rented sector now deals with only about 6 per cent. of households in Cardiff, and that there has been an increase of well over one third in the number of homelessness presentations in the capital city? Does he accept that there is a desperate need for the Government to give positive support to the council house sector if those homelessness figures are not to continue to escalate and the council house waiting list is not to continue to lengthen? Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to assure us that finances will be made available, not only for management, but for an increase in the number of houses in the public sector to meet that desperate need?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the provision of private rented accommodation is too low. It has been sat on and harried for many years. We wish to bring that to an end and to expand both the private sector and the housing association movement. Local authorities ought to look after their stock and keep it in good repair. A great deal of publicly owned housing has fallen into serious disrepair and we have urged local councils to spend money on repairing it. Local councils are free to build, and they are doing so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister failed to answer the key question, which is how much housing there will be for rent in Wales at affordable prices. Does the Housing Bill provide a guarantee to tenants that rented accommodation will cost no more than 20 per cent. of their income? If the Minister cannot say that it does, the promises in the Housing Bill are as nothing and will not meet the demand all over Wales for cheap, decent rented housing.

Mr. Grist: We believe that social housing, or affordable rents, will be available through the housing association movement in particular. Housing benefit will be available to all who are paying rents at or below the market level.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister has referred several times to housing associations, but in areas such as Gwynedd and Dyfed house prices are escalating so rapidly that housing

associations are finding it next to impossible, given the bureaucratic procedures, to compete in the market place and acquire housing. What additional provision does the Welsh Office intend to make available to housing associations to enable them to undertake the vital role to which the Minister referred?

Mr. Grist: That is why we are making £60 million available this year to the Housing Corporation in Wales. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the establishment of Housing for Wales, a body which will be able to take into account the factors to which he referred.

Hospitals

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals he has visited in Wales since 1 January.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have visited two hospitals and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has visited four.

Mr. Jones: When the Minister makes his visits, is he apprised of the serious national shortage of speech therapists and physiotherapists? Will he dwell on the distress and upset in many homes that shelter within them children who, when in language units at school, do not have sufficient time devoted to their speech defects? I ask the Minister to call an all-Wales conference, to give extra money to the health authorities and to give a lead in helping very distressed families.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have increased the number of speech therapists in Wales and the money that is being spent on speech therapy. However, I recognise that this is an important area and that parents feel anxious and aggrieved. I should like the improvement to be continued.

Dr. Marek: When does the Minister intend to keep the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that by last spring nobody in Wales should have to wait more than a month for an urgent operation?

Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that there has been a substantial improvement, unlike the sharp deterioration that occurred in the year before this Government took office.

Mr. Alan Williams: On the Secretary of State's visits to various hospitals he will no doubt have noticed the shortage of nurses. Since the recent review exercise had, as part of its purpose, giving proper pay to nurses to ensure that they no longer left the profession and—equally important—to ensure that recruitment was improved to make up for shortages, has any provision been made to meet the costs of filling vacant nursing posts and, if so, precisely how much?

Mr. Walker: That will vary from one district health authority to another, but the right hon. Gentleman must be very pleased that there are at least 13 per cent. more nurses today than there were when we took office.

Sport and Recreation

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the sporting leisure and


recreational facilities available to the people of (a) Rhondda, (b) the valleys of South Wales and (c) Wales as a whole.

Mr. Peter Walker: Central Government support to sporting, leisure and recreational facilities is provided primarily through the Sports Council for Wales, the Welsh Arts Council and the Wales Tourist Board. Urban programme support will also be available for worthwhile projects. Developments in the Rhondda and other South Wales valleys will be given added impetus by the recently announced specific programmes announced in the Valleys programme.

Mr. Rogers: Last week, in the debate on sport, the Minister drew attention to the enormous increase in the use of sporting and leisure activities in the past 10 years. After an intervention, and with some bad grace, he acknowledged that that was due to the efforts of local authorities. Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge the enormous contribution made by local authorities in the development of leisure and recreational activities? Will he give an assurance that the facilities in Wales will remain in public hands and not he ripped off for private profits?

Mr. Walker: They will certainly remain in public hands. I am delighted that the various organisations and the servicing of them will be compared with private tenders, but they will remain in public hands. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted at the announcement of the £8·26 million of capital grant in the next three financial years for various leisure and sporting facilities, which will make quite an impact. Of course, local authorities make a major contribution. I am sure that local authorities in Wales are relieved that in recent years 66 per cent. of that contribution was financed by central Government.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to welcome the new pub hours due to be introduced in Wales by 1 September? Does he acknowledge that the introduction of the Licensing Act will not only add greatly to the facilities available for recreation and leisure in Wales but will enable the courts to crack down on under-age drinking?

Mr. Walker: I certainly welcome any proposals that enable the courts to crack down on under-age drinking.

Enterprise Education

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of enterprise education in Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The "Survey of Enterprise Education and School Industry Links," by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, which was published earlier this month, confirms that the enterprise culture is taking hold in Wales. Nearly 90 per cent. of all Welsh secondary schools are now involved in some form of enterprise education, with more than 70 per cent. specifically involved in mini-enterprise activities.
The HMI report suggests that in the best schemes enterprise education has helped to relate the curriculum to industrial and commercial activities and to the local community. Pupils acquire an awareness of the world of business through practical experience and develop personal abilities and initiative.

Mr. Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he satisfied that the business community is now ready to play its new full role in the governance of schools and colleges?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly the business community has reacted extremely well to the industry-schools initiative of 1986. There is a very prominent role for the business community in the governance of schools. Some 25 per cent. of the governors of local authority colleges are required to be representatives of the business community for the future.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that in encouraging enterprise in education, which is very desirable, one must take the greatest care not to affect the public service ethic, which is the foundation of all proper education, including the conduct of all our public examinations at GCSE level? In particular, does he agree that the activities of academic racketeers, such as Mr. William Hoole, the principal at New college, Cardiff, who has shown a great deal of enterprise but not very much ethic, are thoroughly undesirable? Does he also agree that if he were to study the dossier of allegations of misconduct in GCSE, O and A-level examinations at that college he would see that students were being given tip-offs about which subjects were coming up in A and O-level practical examinations, that atlases were being taken into examinations when that was not allowed under Welsh Joint Education Committee rules, and other examples of ways in which the public service ethic would be very seriously affected if that kind of thing were continued?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is confusing at least two matters. With regard to the situation at New college, Cardiff, he is well aware that I have asked him to submit to me any information that he has. The premises will be visited by Her Majesty's inspectors for the second time in the coming year.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, of course education is a public service, whether it is provided by the private sector or the maintained sector. I am sure he will agree that an important part of education is that children should be introduced to the world of work.

Welsh Parliament

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the establishment of a Welsh parliament since June 1987.

Mr. Peter Walker: In the past year I have received only two letters specifically asking for a Welsh parliament.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response by the people of Wales to Opposition Members' demands shows that they recognise the importance of being fully represented in this House and that they do not wish to see another tier of government added to the burden on the Welsh people? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the new-found interest of Opposition Members is merely a recognition of their impotence?

Mr. Walker: In fairness, my hon. Friend must specify which Opposition Members have one view and which have another. The last official view of the Opposition was in their manifesto, which said:
Wales is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Labour rejects any proposals which would separate Wales in any way from the rest of Britain.


I trust that after his triumphant return from Zimbabwe the Leader of the Opposition will make clear the Labour party's position.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that since 1979 thousands of people in Wales who voted no on that occasion have seen the potential merit of having a directly elected Welsh body, namely, that the responsibilities of the Welsh Office would come under the control of people elected in Wales who would answer to the people of Wales? If there were sufficient evidence from Wales that there was a strong desire for an elected tier of democracy there, would he for ever more pitch his heart against it?

Mr. Walker: I noted the result of the last referendum on the subject. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has remained consistent on the issue as has his party. Indeed, it is the main purpose of his party. The Conservative party has also remained consistent on the issue. The only party that changes its view from time to time is the Labour party.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend propose to invite the Leader of the Opposition for discussions on this important matter on his return from Zimbabwe? Does he think that the Leader of the Opposition will have learnt anything of interest from his visit to Zimbabwe that will help the Welsh people, or does he believe that he will be so upset by what happened to him there that he will be incapable of any discussions on anything?

Mr. Walker: I do not wish to join my hon. Friend in that sort of allegation. I happen to be one of the leaders of the belief that we must preserve the present Leader of the Opposition at all costs.

Ogwr Borough (Development)

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra finance is available for any new development in the Ogwr borough area from his Valleys initiative programme.

Mr. Peter Walker: The level of expenditure in Ogwr will depend to a large extent on the number and quality of projects which come forward from local authorities, industrialists and others in the area over the three years of the Valleys programme. But, there is no doubt the area will benefit. For example, in 1988–89 expenditure on derelict land clearance in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is forecast to be some £400,000—over 50 per cent. up on last year; Welsh Development Agency expenditure on factory building will be about £500,000 compared with nothing at all last year; and urban programme allocations to Ogwr borough council in 1988–89 total some £1·2 million—about 20 per cent. more than last year. In addition, I shall shortly be announcing a new experimental scheme based in the Bridgend area which will aim to improve the link between small businesses and private investors.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the Welsh Institute of Directors' statement last Saturday? Clearly, they are appalled at his suggestion that the Valleys initiative will do anything without cash back-up? Can he explain to the House whether there is any new money for his new initiative? I remind him that in the Ogwr borough

area the only new initiative announced is the refurbishment of the Blaengarw working men's hall. The other proposals offered for Ogwr were already on the books long before he announced his Valleys initiative.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's constituency benefits massively from the enormous increase in factory building and derelict land clearance. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman is horrified at the substantial improvements taking place in the valleys.

Tenants' Choice

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for tenants' choice in Wales, in the light of the publication by the Secretary of State for the Environment of a document setting out the position in England.

Mr. Grist: Exactly the same principles will govern the implementation of tenants' choice in Wales as will govern it in England. Once Housing for Wales has been established, it will take over the functions of the Housing Corporation in this regard, as in others, but will continue to apply the same principles. I am today issuing similar guidance to that which has been issued in England. Copies of the guidance are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Griffiths: What consultations did the Minister undertake with local authorities in Wales before publishing the guidelines? Will he explain how he foresees this initiative increasing the amount of housing available for people in Wales?

Mr. Grist: The initiative increases tenants' choice. Labour Members have always opposed people's right to buy their houses or to have the landlords of their choice. The Labour party is not the party of freedom and choice for the individual.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

County Palatine

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit the County Palatine on official duties.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I frequently visit the County Palatine, and I expect to make more visits in the autumn.

Mr. Pike: When the Chancellor next visits Lancashire, will he get away from the wining-and-dining circuit, visit north-east Lancashire, look at the difficulties of people being unable to get housing grants and of the problems that will arise as a result of the poll tax? If he meets ordinary Lancashire folk, he will find that the Government have been a disaster for Lancashire. Will he use his office to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to do something about the problems?

Mr. Clarke: I wine and dine on quite a modest scale in Lancashire and meet many straightforward Lancashire folk. My experience of the county is that at present it is going through an extremely successful period. East Lancashire is experiencing one of the most sustained falls


in unemployment that the area has known for a long time. That is likely to continue as long as the British economy is doing so well.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the people of Lancashire take a very positive view of life, as he does himself? They resent Labour Members' denigration of a county that is flourishing. The only fly in the ointment is the high level of rates that has been levied since the Labour party took control of the council. Rates have almost doubled since it took over. Apart from that, it is a super county.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that Lancashire is proving especially successful in attracting new investment and jobs, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The Burnley and Pendle development corporation has been doing very good work over the past two years. The fly in the ointment in parts of Lancashire has been the excessive spending of councils, which has resulted in high rates for local industry. Even some of the councils are beginning to learn the lesson.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Publications

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the publications for which the Church Commissioners are responsible.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison): The commissioners' publications include their annual report and accounts, their report as the central stipends authority and, in partnership with the Central Board of Finance, "Crockford's Directory", and a three-yearly report on the Church's finances. The commissioners also publish a variety of material for information on such matters as parochial fees, the parochial expenses of the clergy and other matters for which they have some responsibility.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courteous reply. In considering the publications programme, will the Church Commissioners bear in mind the yearning of the British people for a moral lead? When they consider whether to publish the works of the Bishop of Durham, will they bear in mind that many of us would be reluctant to see my right hon. Friend charged with the once capital crime of heresy?

Mr. Alison: I note carefully what my hon. Friend says. The utterances of the Bishop of Durham are as likely to find themselves recorded in the columns of Hansard as in any Church Commissioners' report. The utterances, teachings and moral exhortations of bishops and other clergy occur regularly at parish and diocesan level, where they are most valued and most effective.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that sentences of consecration must be issued on cemetary land and that such sentences were issued on the three cemetaries sold by Westminster city council? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those sentences of consecration prevent the sale of such land to property speculators? Will he confirm that the consistory court of the diocese—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be related to publications.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman instigate an inquiry into these matters?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which, although profoundly relevant to many aspects of life and death, is outside my remit.

Pensions and Lump Sum Payments

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners will be asked to contribute per head, in lump sums and in pension payments, to bishops and clergymen who opt out of holy orders in the event of the ordination of women; how many bishops and clergy are expected to be involved; at what estimated total cost; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The draft legislation concerning the ordination of women and the related financial provisions is now awaiting consideration by a revision committee. I shall arrange for details of the payment provisions, as the legislation is at present drafted, to be published in the Official Report, but I can say that the cost per 100 men is estimated at some £3 million spread over five years. No reliable estimate can be made of the numbers who might resign.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a substantial number of men have said that they will leave holy orders in the Church of England in the event of the ordination of women, thereby creating a major schism within the Church? Will my right hon. Friend seek talks with the Church Commissioners to ensure that any men who exercise their right to leave holy orders are thoroughly compensated, as they should be?

Mr. Alison: The details of possible compensation are already under scrutiny, as my answer revealed. My hon. Friend must bear in mind that there must be another election of the General Synod in 1990 before any irrevocable decision can be taken on the ordination of women. Such a decision is a long way off and far from certain at this stage.

Following is the information:
Under the draft Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure, a diocesan bishop would receive a lump sum loan of £15,990, a resettlement grant of £1,700 and periodic payments of £7,995 per annum for up to five years according to age. An incumbent would receive a lump sum loan of £15,990, a resettlement grant of £1,700 and periodic payments of £5,330 per annum for up to five years according to age.
The total cost per 100 men is estimated at some £3 million spread over five years. Half of that relates to loans, which would be repayable from the lump sum payable at retirement age.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Auditors (Payment)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the total sum paid to


outside auditors by the National Audit Office for each of the last five years; and how many private sector audit practices were in receipt of such payments.

Sir Peter Hordern (The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The main National Audit Office contracts for audit work placed with firms engaged in private sector audit practice amounted to £53,000—including VAT—in 1984–85 involving two firms. The figure for 1988–89 is estimated at £139,000. The number of firms involved this year is three. I have arranged for full details for the five years covered by the question to appear in the Official Report.

Mr. Field: Can my hon. Friend really be satisfied with those figures, given the substantial size of the National Audit Office? Should we not look for a much greater proportion of the audit work being put out to the private sector?

Sir Peter Hordern: It is open to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has complete authority in these matters, to decide just how much work should be put out to the private sector. The Comptroller and Auditor General recognises the importance of the work being carried out in the private sector to help his auditors gain experience of the private sector market, as is happening increasingly.

Following are the figures:

The main National Audit Office contracts with firms engaged in private sector audit practice have been as follows:


Year
Total Contract Value (including VAT) £
Number of firms


1984–85
53,000
2


1985–86
81,000
4


1986–87
88,00
2


1987–88
97,000
2


1988–891
139,000
3


1 Estimate.

These contracts cover the audit of NAO's own accounts and audit work on other organisations' accounts on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Commission Meetings

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what matters were discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission's last meeting was held on Tuesday 12 July, when the subjects discussed included the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the salary of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. The Commission also agreed a report on its recent activities. The report was published this morning.

Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on the respective salary levels that obtain within the Public Accounts Commission, especially for Northern Ireland, where the situation is difficult?

Sir Peter Hordern: I have to report to the House that the Commission is not satisfied with the Government's attitude towards the salary of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General, which has been both

obstructive and negative. Ministers must understand that the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether here or in Northern Ireland, is vital to the proper execution of his duties. When I tell the House that it was seriously suggested that the Northern Ireland Civil Service should help to assess what the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General should be paid by way of salary, I think the House will appreciate how unsatisfactory the present position is.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General did absolutely invaluable work in bringing forward the facts of the De Lorean scandal and making them known to the House? Is it not disgraceful that Ministers have left matters as they are? I know that my hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission have made a personal approach to Ministers, but will my hon. Friend go back to them again and insist that they take early action?

Sir Peter Hordern: Yes, we shall do that.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and of the Comptroller and Auditor General seem to be largely determined by the views of the Civil Service? As their function is to monitor and control expenditure by civil servants, that is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Will the hon. Gentleman accept the strong support of the House for the action that he is taking?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. What is particularly sad about the present impasse is that the common purpose that has existed for more than 100 years between this House and the National Audit Office has now been called into question. It is absolutely essential that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be seen to be independent of the Government and that his salary should not be directly related to any particular service or grade in the Civil Service. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we hope to have further discussions with the Government.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: Will my hon. Friend take note of the general view of the House on this matter, which is clearly in support of the strong, but wholly appropriate, language that my hon. Friend used about the Government's attitude to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland? It is very important, and I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that he makes the strongest renewed representations to Ministers asking them to think again.

Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I shall certainly do that. The trouble is that the affairs of the Public Accounts Commission are not widely known, and I would therefore commend to the House the report of the Commission, which appeared today.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Medical Facilities

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the medical facilities open to Members and staff of the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the work of the nursing sister. The medical facilities of the House are kept under continuous review, with improvements being made from time to time on the advice of medical experts. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, I suggest that in the first instance he should contact either my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Sir G. Vaughan) or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).

Mr. Wareing: Does the Lord President of the Council realise that, notwithstanding the marvellous work done by the nursing sister, no other medical staff are available on a full-time basis either to the House of Commons or to Members of the other place? Should there not be medical staff, and should we not make provision for them to consider the health hazards and problems of Members and staff who work in this place? Heaven knows, with this Government introducing so much legislation, it is a wonder that there are still so many well people in this place.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It only adds to the time.

Mr. Wareing: It is ludicrous that it should be the will of the electorate that determines how many members of the medical profession we have in this place. At the moment we happen to have one hon. Member on either side of the House who is a medical practitioner. Should there not be a more permanent arrangement than that?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that there could be a case for the review of a medical surveillance scheme for hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least discuss his ideas with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to Dr. Snashall, who operates the present service, and to his predecessor Dr. Gage. Provisions for dealing with emergencies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind have been made on the advice of the Civil Service medical adviser and have included the training of a number of qualified first-aiders among the staff. In addition, we are fortunate in having a number of excellent hospitals nearby.

Mr. Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is to be a tug-of-war this evening between Members of the House and Members of the other place in aid of the Macmillan fund, which is an excellent charity? What arrangements has my right hon. Friend made to ensure that medical facilities are on hand in case of accidents in this perilous venture?

Mr. Wakeham: I sincerely hope that no special arrangements will be required. I have seen some of the hon. Members who are taking part in the tug-of-war and they look pretty fit to me.

Palace of Westminster (Passes)

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the number of passes issued to gain access to the Palace of Westminster, about the case for the numbers to be limited and about the feasibility of limiting pass holders to more restricted areas of the Palace.

Mr. Wakeham: Since 10 November 1987, when the House resolved that the Services Committee should consider the control of access to the precincts of the House, I have received one letter from an hon. Member and answered 10 parliamentary questions on matters relating to the number of passes issued.
In addition to that, during the course of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee's inquiry into access to the precincts of the House the Sub-Committee took oral evidence on four occasions and received some 35 memoranda. The Sub-Committee has just completed that inquiry and intends to publish the report, which encompasses, among other issues, numbers of passes, their limitation and the question of controlled areas, on Monday 25 July.

Mr. Chapman: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply, I shall wait to read with interest the report of the Select Committee. In the meantime, could my right hon. Friend assure the House that the deliberations and proposals of this Committee will be based not only on grounds of security but on the simple fact that the Palace has limited facilities for a limited number of people and that, on the space factor alone, more restrictions will be necessary?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's point. However, I recommend that he awaits publication of the report.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are no fewer than 140 Government press officers with passes to this building which give them access to the Press Gallery, and that that means that there is one Government press officer for every three journalists entitled to get into the Press Gallery? Is that because Ministers are incapable of explaining the Government's policies?

Mr. Wakeham: It is because they are capable of explaining their good policies and because they have plenty to say that, from time to time, press officers are required in the House. The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous if he thinks that the 140 are here together at any one time, because there are many Government Departments. The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of these matters. I suggest that he awaits publication of the report, which he played some part in preparing.

Dining Rooms (China and Cutlery)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many pieces of (a) china and (b) cutlery are estimated to have been removed without authority


from House of Commons Dining Rooms in each of the past five years; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Wakeham: The average cost per annum over the last five-year period of purchases of tableware amounted to £43,000, which represents approximately 2 per cent. of the Refreshment Department's annual turnover. These purchases were substantially to cover general wear and tear. It is not possible to give a breakdown.

Mr. Greenway: It is annoying that we cannot have a breakdown of the figures for china. In view of the high cost of the replacement of china and cutlery—items of which are usually taken as souvenirs—will my right hon. Friend save the taxpayers' money by electronically tagging all china and cutlery? Will he consider issuing plastic knives, forks and spoons stamped with the House of Commons crest to all visitors, so that they can take them away with them?

Mr. Wakeham: As usual, my right hon. Friend comes up with novel and interesting suggestions. I am not sure that the losses that we incur, although we want to keep them down to a minimum, are out of line with those for a busy Department. I shall refer my hon. Friend's suggestion to the General Manager of the Refreshment Department.

Mr. Rees: Will the Leader of the House take account of what is done in one of the most expensive restaurants in London? As so much expensive cutlery is stolen, the men who attend the table now add the cost of it to the bill and, because the people who steal it are so ashamed, the issue is not raised? The owner of the restaurant says that he covers his account every year in that way.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the 2 per cent. is added to the bill anyway, but I do not agree with that suggestion. The 2 per cent. is not an unreasonable figure. Again, I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the head of the Refreshment Department.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend accept a little advice from me? If he were to send a runner round the offices of Members of Parliament in this and other

buildings, he would find any number of cups, saucers, knives, spoons and forks, which have not been permanently removed, but have been taken, as a matter of convenience, when hon. Members have been sitting late through the night, and have then been left there. Rather than cast aspersions on the integrity of visitors to the House, he might follow that suggestion. I have two items in my office.

Mr. Wakeham: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he returns them forthwith; and, if other hon. Members have any, perhaps they could return them, too.

Select Committees

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reviewing the work of the Select Committees.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no present proposals for any such review.

Mr. Dalyell: If a Government want to bury an inconvenient Select Committee report, what better than to have it published in the fourth week of July, preferably to coincide with a royal wedding or tercentencary celebrations? Now that we have a 10-minute rule for speeches, would it not be a good idea to debate each Select Committee report for at least half a day on the 10-minute basis for speeches? Would that not give some added point to the hard work that colleagues of all parties do in Select Committees?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept that any Select Committee report that the hon. Gentleman finds interesting has been buried as a result of any Government activities. He should know that that is not the case. All Select Committee reports are available for comment. It is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, in the first instance, to consider whether arrangements for debating Select Committee reports could be changed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

Nelson Mandela

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continuing imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and the urgent need to secure his immediate release on the occasion of his 70th birthday.
Yesterday, in Hyde park, a quarter of a million people heard Archbishop Tutu make the most impassioned appeal for the release of Nelson Mandela. Yesterday morning, at Canterbury cathedral, Archbishop Runcie made a speech about the dangers of racialism in the world.
Nelson Mandela is one of the most courageous world leaders. He has spent 26 years in prison. I, among many others, took part in the demonstrations at the time of the Rivonia trial when he was imprisoned for life. He is a symbol of the black people and of many white people in South Africa. His release has been demanded by many nations and national leaders across the world, the United Nations Security Council, the Commonwealth, the EEC Heads of State and the Churches, and has wide support across the House.
It is especially appropriate for the House to devote some time to this issue, in view of the historic and economic links with South Africa and the fact that it is Nelson Mandela's birthday. It is urgent because his continued detention is one of the factors leading to a daily loss of life in South Africa and his release would give fresh hope.
The House has adjourned to mark the death of great world statesmen. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the House to prevent the death of a great nation by the continued violence against Nelson Mandela.
I know very well the formula from which you, Mr. Speaker, read in rejecting applications under Standing Order No. 20, but I ask you to set those words aside today and to grant the request which may be effective in saving life as well as in honouring a great man wrongly imprisoned for great principles which are important to the future of the world.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the continued imprisonment of Mr. Nelson Mandela and the urgent need for further Government action to secure his immediate release on the occasion of his 70th birthday.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am enjoined, under the Standing Order, not to give reasons for my decision but to take careful note of the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Rover Group

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement by Mr. Graham Day this afternoon that he and the Rover board propose to close two Rover plants in the next year or so".
The matter is specific because Mr. Day has made no bones about his intention to close the Cowley south and Llanelli plants, with the loss of 4,900 jobs, very much along the lines of which many of us warned last week when two ministerial statements were made on the subject of Rover. This matter is also specific in that Mr. Day has indicated an established timetable for the carrying out of the closures.
The matter is clearly important, not only to the local economies and the people whose jobs will be destroyed but to the future of what remains of the British-controlled volume car industry. In effect, this development signals the end of that industry. It solves the puzzle of why the Rover corporate plan was regarded as a matter of such contention by the Government, the EEC Commission and British Aerospace. We now know why British Aerospace regarded it not as "neither important nor material", as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster maintained, but as an essential precondition to going ahead with privatisation. It is also important because one of the avowed intentions of the sale is to take the future of the British car industry out of the remit of the House and put it into the hands of those who will consider only commercial factors.
The matter requires urgent consideration because we have had two ministerial statements on Rover in the past week, neither of which ventured upon this development or gave any inkling that it was in store. In the light of Mr. Day's statement just two hours ago, we desperately need urgent ministerial clarification. The matter will be resolved one way or the other, presumably during the summer recess, so this may be the last opportunity for the House to consider this important matter. It would be outrageous if we were denied the chance to debate a development of such fateful significance to the British car industry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure by Rover group of two major plants in the next few years".
Again, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I have to give him the same answer as I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised meets the criteria for granting a debate under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. "Erskine May" states that, whenever it seems to you a suitable occasion, you should communicate to the House letters and documents addressed to you as Speaker relating to the rights and privileges of the House or of its Members, such as communications announcing the arrest or imprisonment of a Member. Will you please make an announcement soon? At least half the House wants to know about the return of the bomber-jacketed ambassador for Britain, although sadly that half of the House does not include the Labour party.

Mr. Speaker: I have received no notification about that, and it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the speakers at yesterday's great demonstration in Hyde park was the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. On behalf of the Commonwealth, he made a very clear statement that the Commonwealth and all its members were in favour of the release of Nelson Mandela. On that basis, why cannot we have a debate on the subject in the House of Commons? [Interruption.] With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not time that the yobbos on the Conservative Benches were kept in order?
In view of the statements made by Archbishop Tutu, Bishop Huddlestone—who has done more than anyone for peace, friendship and reconciliation—and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, is it not possible to have a debate today? This is a very important day. Nelson Mandela is 70 years of age today and has spent 25 years in prison—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that this is a joke, but we do not.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House treats this matter with great concern. [Interruption.] I do anyway. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have difficult decisions to take on Standing Order No. 20 applications about whether they meet the criteria. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any reasons for my decision.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the matter that I have already dealt with.

Mr. Forth: You, Mr. Speaker, are the custodian of this House and of its Members, and I know that from time to time you have contact with the Speakers of other Parliaments, particularly those in the Commonwealth. Have you made it your business to he in touch with the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe over recent distressing incidents involving a Member of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have not been in touch with that Speaker, but I hope to have the pleasure of meeting him this week during the Commonwealth Speakers' conference.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would take very seriously indeed the issue of Nelson Mandela being kept in prison. As you know, it is 26 years since he went to prison, and today he celebrates his 70th birthday. We are a founder member of the Commonwealth, and every Commonwealth Parliament has passed motions deploring the continued detention of Nelson Mandela. I should like to ask for your advice on two matters.
First, as Speaker of the House, would you be willing to send a message to Nelson Mandela on his 70th birtday? That would be very much in line with the Government's view because they have said that they are against his being kept in prison. If they are against his being kept in prison, why cannot you, on our behalf, as Speaker of the British House of Commons, and because Britain is a member of the Commonwealth, send a message? Secondly, would you be willing to accept a manuscript motion asking you to do what I have just suggested?

Mr. Speaker: I would need to have the authority of the House to do that.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On page 252 of "Erskine May", footnote 20 says:
The Speaker's decision on the identity of the Leader of the Opposition is final".
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that cases of doubt occasionally arise, especially abroad where the "Yesterday in Parliament" programme about proceedings in Parliament is not broadcast. Do you not think that it would be to the benefit of the House if on future tours by Leaders of the Opposition you were to accompany the right hon. Gentleman or were to issue him with a certificate saying, "Believe it or not, this person is actually the Leader of the Opposition"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not reduce our deliberations in this place to a farce.

BILL PRESENTED

RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF FREE TRADE UNIONISM

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Bob Clay, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Pat Wall and Mr. Bill Michie, presented a Bill to repeal the Employment, Employment and Training, Trade Union and Wages Acts 1980 to 1988; to re-enact previous legislation repealed by those Acts, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [1st February), as varied by the Order of the House [17th February], be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days.

(2) The allotted days which arc given to those proceedings shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, the Lords Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in that Table and, subject to the provisions of the Order [1st February], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Proceedings


Allotted day
Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 16, 147 to 186, 227, 476, 480 and 557
6.45 pm



Nos. 7, 17 to 25, 54, 68, 187, 188, 272, 275 and 537 to 539
8.15 pm



Nos. 26 to 38
9.00 pm



Nos. 89 to 146 and 189 to 226
10.45 pm



Nos. 39 to 53, 55 to 67 and 69 to 88
11.30 pm



Nos. 266 to 271, 273, 274 and 276 to 292
Midnight


Second day
Nos. 228 to 265
6.30 pm



Nos. 293 to 342
7.45 pm



Nos. 343 to 395
8.30 pm



Nos. 396 to 437
9.15 pm



Nos. 438 to 475, 477 to 479, 481 to 536, 540 to 556 and 558 to 569
10.00 pm

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisifed that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) delcare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;
(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made

by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, Thai, this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted at any time by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

When the House discussed the guillotine motion in Committee on 1 February, I said that our purpose was to secure an even pattern of debate so that the major issues were properly dealt with. I gave an undertaking to try to ensure that every major matter was given full and measured debate. I said that it was in the interests of all both the Opposition and the Government—that this should happen. We have honoured that commitment. The House has already discussed the Bill for 203 hours and we are about to devote a further two days to it. That will make eight days on the Floor of the House and 22 days in Committee. In addition, the other place has given the Bill close scrutiny during about 150 hours of debate, or 15 days. I have been unable to find any measure since the war that has been more debated or has had more parliamentary time allocated to it.

Despite the fact that this is a large Bill, each of the clauses that will stand in the final version has received, on average, one and a half hours consideration by Parliament. As a high proportion of clauses are technical in nature, the time spent in discussion of substantive issues has, quite rightly, been very much higher.

As we reach the closing stages of the Bill, we need this timetable motion to ensure that Parliament's work bears fruit as early as possible. I have always made clear the urgency that the Government attach to the reforms of the Bill. We believe that they will have an enormously beneficial and stimulating effect on our education system. It is vital that they have a chance to begin to make their impact at the earliest opportunity. That is why we shall seek Royal Assent next week.

I shall illustrate a few of the areas in which there would be significant delay if the Bill were enacted during the spillover period and not before the summer recess.

First, there is the national curriculum. The provisions now in the Bill and the amendments to be considered by the House later today reflect discussion in Parliament over the past two months. We need to begin consultation over the summer on the draft orders designed to begin the process of bringing the national curriculum into effect from September 1989. I shall be publishing the reports of the science working group and the maths working group, which I know that many throughout the education system and the country will want to comment on. That process of consultation requires the enactment of the Bill, and we want to allow a proper period of time for it.

Similarly, the National Curriculum Council needs formally to be in being if the consultation is to take place. If the Bill is not on the statute book until the autumn, I cannot set up the NCC with proper statutory duties. That will mean that our preparations for the national curriculum will be delayed for at least a year. So would be the improved standards that we seek to promote through the national curriculum

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Training Commission's TVEI proposals for the curriculum, which

are 30 per cent. of the 70 per cent. of time that the right hon. Gentleman says should be given to the national curriculum, would be taken up by technology and sciences? The result is that the rest of the national curriculum has to be included in that 40 per cent. period. That means that single subjects such as history and geography could be pushed out completely from any GCSE programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the situation for us?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has come late to the debate. What he says is rubbish. The foundation subjects are laid down clearly in the Bill. That issue will be debated on two occasions later this evening. We want to ensure that the successful work of the technical vocational education initiative since 1983 is implemented in the full curriculum. I made that clear.

Mr. Graham Allen: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has discovered consultation. I wish him success in the consultation that will take place. Would it not have been better to have had a longer period of consultation last summer? If that had been done, we would not have 569 amendments before us, the purpose of which is to try to make the Bill reasonable.

Mr. Baker: There was a long process of consultation before the Bill was introduced, which was continued during its consideration in both Houses. Many of the amendments that were accepted in another place reflect the result of that consultation.
If the passage of the Bill is delayed until the autumn, the national curriculum will be delayed for at least a year and our policy on school admissions will also be delayed. We want parents to be able as soon as possible to take advantage of the improved arrangements that are set out in the Bill. It is clear that the arrangements cannot begin to operate for secondary schools until September 1990. If the Bill is delayed until the autumn, it is likely that those arrangements will be delayed for a further year.

Mr. Jack Straw: Why?

Mr. Baker: There is a process of consultation locally on the standard number. The hon. Gentleman should know the Bill by now. We have already issued draft guidance and we must issue final guidance. If the Bill is delayed, final guidance will not be issued until Christmas or beyond.
There are measures on financial delegation to schools and colleges. Nearly everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agrees with that part of the Bill. We want to see budgets handed down to the schools as soon as possible. However, that would be delayed. We have set a timetable and I have issued draft guidance. The guidance remains draft until the Bill reaches the statute book. If it is delayed, LEAs' proposals will be delayed for at least a year and that would delay implementation for another year.
Finally, there are amendments relating to the reorganisation of education in inner London. If the Bill was delayed for enactment in the autumn, the transfer of powers to individual boroughs in London would certainly be delayed for another year. That would cause grave concern among Conservative-controlled boroughs. Having met representatives of the Labour-controlled boroughs in London, I am aware that they are very enthusiastic to see the end of the Inner London education authority and to take over its responsibilities. Any delay would spite the Labour party's supporters.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State should not deceive himself by suggesting that the Labour-controlled boroughs in London are enthusiastic about the abolition of ILEA. Like any responsible boroughs, if they are forced to confront the abolition of ILEA, they will be responsible for making adequate educational provision for their children. That is a big difference.

Mr. Baker: I met leaders of the eight Labour-controlled boroughs in London a week or 10 days ago, and they convinced me that they will enjoy and use the powers to run their own education authorities—powers like those enjoyed by the local authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
I now want to refer to the number of amendments tabled in the House of Lords. Some 569 amendments were approved—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This point relates to the whole principle of consultation with which the Opposition would agree, particularly if it had been pre-legislative and not just post-legislative. Does the Secretary of State agree that the important Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 16, relating to religious education, are of great significance? However, does he also agree that due to the timing of this—their being passed very recently—it has been impossible for the Secretary of State or hon. Members to consult with those most concerned in the execution of any law that the House may approve?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will remember the final stages of the Bill before it went to their Lordships, House when there was a debate on religious education. I mentioned several amendments that we were moving then as a result of a debate in this House. Further debates have taken place in the House of Lords on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in which further changes have been made and voted upon by their Lordships. The first debate after this guillotine motion is agreed will be on those measures and the House will have an opportunity to express its views both corporately and individually, as I recognise that on these matters hon. Members have very strong and possibly different views.
Nearly 500 of the 569 amendments approved by the other place are technical or consequential—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but they need only read through the Amendment Paper—a rather unfamiliar process for many of them—and they will learn that only 75 of the Government amendments can be described as amendments of substance. Of those, 18 were commitments given while the Bill was before this House. Of the remainder, 27 represent Government responses to debates in the other place. That leaves just 30 substantive amendments, not all by any means of great moment introduced solely on the Government's initiative. Some of those respond to concerns voiced during our continuing consultations. As we have said all along, we proposed to respond to those concerns as Opposition Members would know if they had listened to the arguments in Parliament and elsewhere.
My Department has received more than 25,000 letters from an enormously wide range of people about our proposals. As the principles of the Bill become better known, people have been concentrating increasingly on the detailed way in which it is to be implemented. We have been willing at every stage to amend the Bill, both in

Committee and on Report. I cite as evidence the fact that the Government accepted more than 40 amendments from members of the other place, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) concerning religious education.
I noted that over the weekend the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) claimed that many of the amendments increased the Secretary of State for Education and Science's centralising powers. The Opposition have claimed all along that this is a centralising Bill. The truth is the reverse. The fact is that the Opposition dislike many of the measures that will give greater power to parents, governors and head teachers. Above all, they dislike grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, because they will break the LEA monopoly of free education.

Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are 415 new central powers in the Bill?

Mr. Baker: We have had this debate many times, and I say to the hon. Gentleman that many of the powers I have taken are designed to give institutions greater independence and authority. In order to free the polytechnics from local education authorities, I must have powers to free those polytechnics from the LEAs. In order to have grant-maintained schools, I must take powers to provide for a system ensuring that grant-maintained schools will come about. In order to give greater power to parents and parental choice, must take powers to ensure that parental choice will exist.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Baker: In a moment. I have given way a great deal. The more that I give way, the less time there will be in this hour for anybody else. I feel that I should not give way again.
The hon. Member for Blackburn specifically asked about the powers that the Lords amendments give the Secretary of State. I can give the House examples of some of the amendments that give me extra powers. In financial delegation, we have strengthened the role of the head teacher. That is not increasing the Secretary of State's central power. In religious education, we have established the responsibility of the individual local authority's standing advisory committee on religious education. That is not giving the Secretary of State the power to impose a religious curriculum upon schools. The governors are being given greater control over the timing of the school day. The complaints machinery has been extended to all curriculum powers and duties, including religious education and collective worship. Parents are given a right of appeal against amendment of a statement of special educational need. Those cannot remotely—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must say no, because this debate is restricted to one hour.
I believe that a great deal of the opposition to the guillotine motion is synthetic. All through the debates in Committee the SLD has been making the running in opposition and not the Labour party. If Labour really feels strongly about this measure, where is the Leader of the Opposition? Why is he not leading the campaign against the Bill? We all know where he is—he is on the banks of


the Limpopo. That is where he is conducting his campaign—on the dark, grey-green, greasy banks of the Limpopo, surrounded by fever-trees.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I hope that it is to tell me that the Leader of the Opposition is at this very moment rushing back to this country to attend this debate. Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us at which airport the Leader of the Opposition is landing, and whether we may be sure that he will come here?

Mr. Straw: I was going to ask the Secretary of State why the Prime Minister is not here to support him.

Mr. Baker: The Prime Minister will be in the Lobby supporting this Bill today—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who will still be returning from the Limpopo.
I have explained why the motion is both necessary and reasonable. It ushers in the final phase of what is undeniably one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation ever put before Parliament. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: The guillotine motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House. It is an example of the elective dictatorship that has become a hallmark of the present Administration. We must deal with 569 Lords amendments today and tomorrow at a rate of 70 seconds per amendment, and with 49 new state powers at a rate of 11 minutes for each power.
I have heard some poor speeches, but few to match the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon. It was tawdry, specious and inconsequential. The right hon. Gentleman could come up with hardly any argument for not delaying consideration of the Bill and Royal Assent until the autumn Session. He says that we need to obtain Royal Assent in the next week because the national curriculum will be coming into force. He knows very well, however, that, owing to the shortage of teachers, the fact that the curriculum is so ill-prepared and the problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has spoken, the curriculum's implementation will in any case be delayed until well into the next decade—long after the right hon. Gentleman has left his present office.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of the need to get ahead because, he claimed, London borough leaders are enthusiastic for the reorganisation of ILEA. That is simply an untruth for which the right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House. If that is their view, why did those London borough leaders urge us in March when the Bill was on Report to move an amendment—which was moved—seeking a delay in the implementation of the transfer of ILEA from April 1990 until 1991? It is the borough leaders—of whom, if I may say so, I have rather more knowledge than the Secretary of State—who have been telling us how difficult it would be to secure an effective transfer. They care about the children who will be in their charge, and they will work to do their best whatever circumstances are imposed on them. The simple reality is, however, that they wanted far more time than the Secretary of State has been willing to give them.
We all acknowledge that in any parliamentary system the side that commands a majority will ultimately see its will carried through, but any effective parliamentary system requires that proposals for legislation be fully and properly discussed so that the nation's elected representatives have a chance to consider Bills carefully and to cross-examine Ministers. The very notion of the rule of law depends on that. Yet this afternoon government by the process of law is being replaced by government by edict.
Many of the issues raised in the amendments have never been debated here in detail. For example, the carefully constructed bipartisan approach to religious education and worship is to be replaced, through a string of amendments, by a wholly new edifice that many believe is retrograde and will unsettle the 1944 settlement that has kept religious intolerance out of schools for 50 years. Whatever the merits of the amendments—and they will be discussed in the next debate—surely no one can deny that they deserve much more time than two hours when they propose to overturn a settlement that has stood the test of time for 46 years. The unelected representatives in the other place spent days discussing religious education and worship. We are expected to do so for two hours and literally to take it or leave it, with no chance of any serious line-by-line examination.
Significant changes in the conception of the national curriculum and of testing are written into the Bill. Some are welcome: they show that the Secretary of State has at last understood, however dimly, that his idea of imposing a state syllabus for 90 per cent. of a school's time—as he proposed in the consultative document on 20 July—was based on profound ignorance of how our state education system works or could ever work. However, other aspects of the national curriculum still arouse great controversy and need debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, in an intervention, drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Manpower Services Commission—or the Training Commission—has proposed new guidelines for schools that are to take the TVEI extension. It is proposed that 30 per cent. of the curriculum in respect of 14-to-16-year-olds should be devoted to technology and to what is described as balanced science. If a school's acceptance of TVEI extension depends on its acceptance of that condition, that leaves only 70 per cent. for all the other core and foundation subjects, for religious education and worship and for all the non-national curriculum subjects. Those who have written to my hon. Friend fear that that could seriously endanger the teaching of history and geography as separate subjects at GCSE level.
This is a serious issue which needs proper debate, yet we are to have a total of an hour and a quarter to debate the whole of the national curriculum and assessment.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is rubbish.

Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the Secretary of State's judgment that it is rubbish is right, because we do not want it to happen.
Given the Secretary of State's assurance that only 70 per cent. will cover the national curriculum core subjects, is it not likely that 14-to-16-year-olds will not be given


enough time to study subjects such as English literature, geography and history properly? That will jeopardise GCSE subjects, certainly as potential A-level subjects.

Mr. Straw: I agree. That underlines the fact that there should be more consultation and discussion over the summer before the Bill becomes law, rather than afterwards.
When the original guillotine motion was debated on 1 February, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Bill on the future of ILEA was wholly different from their present policy. When we cross-examined the Leader of the House on that occasion, he refused point-blank to admit even that a change of policy was being contemplated, let alone what it was. At that time, the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had yet to work their poison on the Secretary of State. Then, individual boroughs were going to opt out where entire councils agreed. Now, ILEA is to be broken up altogether.
Major changes in the arrangements for ILEA were made in the Lords. The Secretary of State has taken new powers to control education in individual boroughs, and unprecedented powers to veto not only appointments of chief education officers but appointments—I quote from Lords amendment No. 359—
to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council".
For the first time the Secretary of State—who has told us that he is not centralising power—is taking the power to veto appointments. That applies not just to chief education officers—there was some precedent for that before 1974—but to every other level of the management of an inner London education authority that he so designates.
We have just half an hour to debate those new powers, and an hour and a half to debate changes in the balloting arrangements for opt-out schools. We have two hours to discuss academic freedom and the funding of universities. To debate city technology colleges, on which there has never been a debate in the House, because the Secretary of State is frit—afraid to discuss his policy—we have just two hours, two years after the policy was first announced.

Mr. George Walden: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say earlier that it was wrong of unelected Members of the other place to tamper with the will of this Chamber in regard to religious education. I take it, therefore, that he will be equally opposed to their tampering with the will of the House in regard to opting-out schools. May I take it that he will support the Government's counter-amendment on those schools?

Mr. Straw: I am tempted to say that I can now see why the hon. Gentleman retired hurt from the Government. He has not just twisted what I said; he has invented things that I never said. I do not dispute the right of the other place to make amendments. What I am disputing is the right of the Government to force through the House amendments made in the other place without proper discussion. If unelected Members can take days and days to discuss religious education and worship, this House should have the right to do so as well.
It was Lord Hailsham who developed the phrase "elective dictatorship" to describe Governments who sought more and more power for themselves, with less and less scrutiny of the legislation. We heard this afternoon the classic Stalinist perversion of Marxist-Leninism, the

argument for the dictatorship of the proletariat: that in order to set people free we must put them in chains. That is the Secretary of State's argument. He says, "I am taking these powers only to set people free." Tell that to a London borough whose appointments will be subject to the Secretary of State's veto. Tell that to any university, or to the Universities Funding Council. They know that they will be subject to the Secretary of State's control. Tell that to an individual academic who is to be fired because he has lost tenure. Tell that to local democratically elected councillors who are losing one power after another to the Secretary of State. But he says that that is all being done in the name of freedom.
When the Bill was published on 20 November, 175 new powers were written into the Bill. By Third Reading in this place that number had risen to 366, but another 49 new powers have been added to the Bill in the other place—all, the Secretary of State says, in the name of freedom. That makes 415 new powers of central control, a figure with which the Secretary of State did not disagree when I intervened a few moments ago.
The Bill nationalises our education system. It takes away from local people their power to determine the kind of education that they wish their children to receive. In the autumn the Secretary of Stale is to visit the home of the Stalinist perversion of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union. What a great irony it is that, as the Soviet Union is dismantling its powers of central control over education and the rest of its national life, the Secretary of State is going the other way. When he gets there, I wonder who will teach what to whom? Does he intend to worship at the shrine of Leonid Brezhnev to find out how to exercise these new powers?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If the Labour party is so opposed to centralism, why did the last two Labour Governments try to force all local authorities to go comprehensive?

Mr. Straw: We passed the law, but the person who closed more grammar schools and who opened more comprehensive schools was none other than the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. We moved to impose law in that area and only after there had been a decade of change by consent and support for comprehensive education from Conservative authorities as well as from Labour authorities. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that comprehensive education is such a bad idea, why has no Conservative education authority in the country yet dismantled or even sought successfully to dismantle its own comprehensive system?
The Secretary of State excuses 500 of the 569 amendments by saying that they are all technical and consequential. They are consequential indeed on the Secretary of State's inadequacy and lack of forethought, but that is not an excuse that the House ought to let him get away with. The Secretary of State allowed only 10 weeks for consultation last summer, most of it during the school holidays. We warned at the time that bad law would be the result.
The Secretary of State has a reputation, although it may be a little tarnished after this afternoon's performance, for public relations. We are told that his internal meetings are dominated by presentational matters. It is a great pity for our children as well as for the making of law that the


Secretary of State does not spend more time on the content of policy, on thinking things through. These so-called technical amendments are the consequence of giving officials and parliamentary counsel neither the time nor the instructions to do a proper job in the first place. Hon. Members who will be detained later this week on the poll tax Bill by having to discuss hundreds of technical amendments should reflect on the fact that it is this Secretary of State, not the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is ultimately responsible for that mess, too—of selling to a sceptical Cabinet and sceptical party a policy that got the Conservative party out of a small, temporary, presentational difficulty, only to lead to a much greater permanent policy catastrophe.
Nine years into government this Administration still lack a coherent well-thought-out policy for the education of all our children. We saw that during the last general election campaign when the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister disagreed so violently and publicly on opt-out schools. We have seen it since on testing, on academic freedom, and on religious education as Cabinet government is replaced by Downing street rule by aides and advisers, when the Secretary of State almost literally has to busk, to make things up as he goes along, when he is not told what to do. The approach that is so publicly humiliating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, with Downing street-inspired stories of the resurrection of Sir Alan Walters as economic adviser to Downing street, has already operated on the Secretary of State, for the mark of the Prime Minister's policy adviser, Professor Brian Griffiths—unelected and unaccountable—can be seen on page after page of the Bill.
When the original guillotine was imposed on 1 February, the Leader of the House admitted that there was no justification for that abuse of power. He said:
I am not complaining about the rate of progress;… I am not suggesting that there has been any filibustering"—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 726.] 
There was no justification then for a guillotine. There is even less justification today. We are dealing with the education of 7 million children and their futures. We owe it to them to get things right.
On Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that
there are no action replays of childhood."—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 557.]
Authoritarian rule is not only offensive to democracy. In the end it is profoundly inefficient because so often it gets things wrong. This motion is an offence to democracy, and it is an offence to our children. It must be opposed.

Mr. James Pawsey: In the light of the Education Act 1976, I must say that the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science taking powers was a bit rich. We can recall, if he cannot remember, that it was that Act that took powers from local education authorities. But this Bill, when it is enacted, will ensure that powers and responsibilities are transferred to parents. They will decide what is best for their children.
We have heard a fairly routine guillotine speech from the hon. Member for Blackburn. There were the usual

moans about time, there was the ritual anger and there were the same arguments, We heard all the same synthetic indignation when the timetable motion was announced for the Committee stage, but the fact is that the Bill received 180 hours of discussion in Committee and, in addition, the benefit of another 32 hours on the Floor of the House. This Bill has received more active consideration than any other Bill on any subject since the war. That demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the education of children in the state sector.
Their Lordships made a substantial number of amendments, but the majority of them are technical and they are designed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) laughs, but she ought to refer to The Times Educational Supplement, which does not normally favour the Conservative party. An editorial dated 15 July, headed "Seven Months later…", says:
The great majority of the amendments—as is usual with a Bill of this size—were moved by Ministers, improving the drafting or shutting loopholes.
Does the hon. Lady disagree with that statement? As she does not rise to intervene, we must presume that she agrees.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that when I intervened, by the grace of the Secretary of State, he did not dissent from my point that the most important new clauses, 8 to 16, that deal with religious education and worship are not susceptible to proper consultation with those concerned outside this place before we debate them and that that makes us question whether we should pass them today?

Mr. Pawsey: The amendments received substantial debate in the other place, and in addition they will receive more debate in this Chamber during the next few hours. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is really interested, he will have the opportunity to raise points on that specific item. It will be interesting to see whether he seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is no doubt that this Bill will improve education to the maximum benefit of the children of our country. That is the raison d'etre of the legislation. Some of the amendments made in another place will improve the Bill and I have not the slightest doubt they will be accepted. Only a relatively small number—for example, those on religious education, to which the hon. Member for Newham, South referred, and those relating to grant maintained schools—are genuinely contentious. I have not the slightest doubt that they will receive the consideration that they warrant. They will be debated today and tomorrow—a further full two days debate on the Floor of the House—and will receive an appropriate amount of discussion.
If Opposition Members are genuinely concerned about the amount of time available for the consideration of the amendments—then I hope that we do not get the usual string of bogus points of order which always seem to arise following Prime Minister's questions—perhaps they will exercise a degree of control tomorrow. Opposition Members are the time wasters—[Interruption.] I hear that they are the time servers as well. They choose to reduce the time available for debate.
The Opposition should understand that the principal reason why we want the Bill to reach the statute book before the recess is so that its provisions can be available


for the commencement of the next school year. Some of those provisions, such as open enrolment, could take effect from September. Opposition Members may be cavalier in their attitude towards children's education, but Conservative Members take such matters rather more seriously and we are determined that the Bill should be enacted before we rise for the summer recess.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the anti-democratic guillotine. Opposition Members surely must remember that the record for the number of guillotines introduced in a single day belongs to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is in his place today. The great democrat became the great dictator when he became the arbiter of parliamentary time.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could stop the hon. Lady in pink, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), from constantly hectoring and nagging my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)? It really is a hit much if people in this House have to conform to sexual stereotypes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that we had better get on with the debate.

Mr. Pawsey: Matters could be worse. One could be married to the hon. Lady.
This debate detracts from the amount of time available to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On reflection, will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark, which was of a very personal nature?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate, and I hope that it will be conducted in good humour.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Blackburn is somewhat thin skinned. To do her credit, even the hon. Member for Durham, North-West did not rise to that. However, if my remark caused offence either to the hon. Gentleman or to the hon. Lady, I willingly withdraw it.
Even this debate detracts from the amount of time available for the discussion of the Bill. Would it not be wiser if we proceeded to the principal and more important business—the discussion of the Education Reform Bill? This debate and the time it takes will be the real measure of the Opposition's concern. The quicker we start to debate the substance of the Bill, the better.
The Bill will improve the quality and the standing of state education. We are happy to debate it today and tomorrow. Who knows, if Opposition Members actually bring open minds to our discussion, they may join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Michael Foot: Although I consider that the way in which the Bill is being put through is scandalous, and although I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said from the Opposition Front Bench, I wish to concentrate for a few minutes on the part of the Bill that has been introduced mainly in the House of Lords during the past few weeks and which gives rise to even more insult to the House of Commons. I refer to the provisions concerning religious education.

Whatever view people may take on different forms of religious education, surely a Minister responsible for education in this country should have enough knowledge of its history to know that for many decades, almost for centuries, arguments about religion have destroyed the possibility of sensible agreements and education reform. It was largely because of that understanding that that part of the 1944 Act was so successful.
When R.A. Butler introduced that Bill, he took account of the consultation that he had taken on that subject for many months and many years. It is scandalous for the Secretary of State and the Government to say, "We push all that aside. We do not worry about the history of the country, the history of education or the history of religious argument. We know better and we shall push through a different arrangement for dealing with a very delicate subject which could give rise afresh to other arguments which could do great injury to our education in future." It is scandalous that the Secretary of State should have given his name to that.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman can say that it has all been thought up by the bishops in the other place, that they had a hole-in-the-corner meeting and that is supposed to be good enough for the House of Commons. It is not at all good enough for the House of Commons. Many besides bishops have a right to speak on the matter.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not remember it, I can quote to him another verse from his famous anthology. It is by Jonathan Swift who knew something about the church and the bishops. In "Verses written upon windows", he wrote:
The Church and clergy here, no doubt,
Are very near a-kin;
Both weather-beaten are without;
And empty both within.
I do not apply that to any particular bishops in the other place, but it would embrace many of them. Seriously, it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to think that a hole-in-the-corner compromise worked out in the other place, which has no representative authority in these matters, could be satisfactory for dealing with such a delicate subject. It is utterly shameful, so I ask the Government to withdraw it.
I speak on behalf of those who uphold a humanist tradition in this country—a very proper and worthy tradition. We have as much right to be consulted about such things as have other people. We do not trust the bishops or the representatives of other denominations. We have a right to discuss such matters.
The Secretary of State has been responsible for pushing aside all forms of consultation on the matter. I understand that a report was drawn up by one of the inspectors and that quite a lot of consultation was taking place. That report has been supressed, it was never properly debated and at the very last moment, when the Bill is being dragged through the House of Commons, we are told that we have to agree to the religious, non-religious or anti-religious measures. It is a scandal for the Government to deal with it in this way. If the Government have trouble in different schools—and we all know that there are many people of different religion in different schools around the country—if they believe that they know best and that they have only to take up these phrases that have been adopted by a few bishops at the other end of the corridor, push them


through the House of Commons and deal with a delicate problem that occurs in so many areas of the country, that is a scandalous way for them to deal with a major question.
If the Secretary of State had any honour in these matters, he would never have brought the measures before us. He would have said that they would be brought in only after full consultation. On those grounds alone, the guillotine motion is an offence to the House of Commons. The Government are inviting trouble. There is a history of people disobeying education laws. I suppose the Prime Minister has forced this upon the Secretary of State, but Ministers should read up on some British history before they attempt to teach it to anybody else.

Mr. John Bowis: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was referring to the next debate, rather than this one. However, it was a pleasant contrast to the huffery and puffery of the opening speech made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) put his finger on the reason why there was so much huffery and puffery when he referred to the Labour party's policy of the past. It used to have a policy, which was to comprehensivise everything. Now, it has no education policy. Labour Members huff and puff and say that our policy is wrong, but they do not say what is right.
The Labour party has formed a group called Parents in Partnership. The hon. Member for Blackburn will know about that. It has come up with various initiatives which have been dismissed as virtually worthless, not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, but by Mr. Neil Fletcher, the, leader of the Inner London education authority and a member of the Labour party's new education forum. He, along with many in Labour local government circles, is critical of the knee-jerk policy-making of the parliamentary team. I will dwell no more on the knee jerking, but that is what we have had today.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Bowis: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because we want to speed this through.
If the Labour party had been interested in the debate on the Education Reform Bill, it could have nodded the timetable motion through and let us get on with the debate. There has been sitting after sitting on the Bill. There was the Second Reading, 42 sittings in Committee, four days on Report, the days in the Lords, and now two more days in the House. No Bill can ever have had such rigorous debate and consideration. There have been probing and testing amendments, which have received consideration. The Committee and the House have listened and, above all, the Government have listened. That is why we have the amendments before us today. If the Government listen, they come forward with amendments. They listened to the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons, and tabled amendments in the Lords. Many of us are pleased about that.
The nation wishes us to get on with it. The schools and colleges are waiting for the final go-ahead so that they can put the measures into practice. The public are looking forward to the new measures and there is further public

consultation to come. The public approval of the Bill is one reason why we can brook no delay. On London figures 72 per cent. of the public want the national curriculum, and only 16 per cent. are against it, 74 per cent. are in favour of core testing and only 20 per cent. are against and 75 per cent. are in favour of the grant-related status option and only 17 per cent. are against. Public opinion, parents and Parliament are in favour. The only people in favour of delay are Her Majesty's Opposition. We should brook no delay today.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The debate has been typical of the brevity with which the Government deal with education matters. I suspect that it is unique in that, probably for the first time in our experience of education debates, the Secretary of State, after a poor performance, is looking to the Minister of State to dig him out of a hole. I suspect that, given the Minister of State's record in Committee, the Secretary of State will be relying on something of a forlorn hope.
The debate has been typical in its brevity and typical of the Government's consultation process. It is typical of a Government who allowed little time for consultation with parents, teachers, or local authorities. It is typical of a Government who introduced a guillotine in Committee when the Leader of the House said that there was no evidence that the Opposition were filibustering. This guillotine, as with the guillotine in Committee, and the shortness of time for consultation may show a damaging ideological triumphalism, but they also show an uncertainty about the measures that they are introducing. It is an uncertainty that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to in terms of religious education, but it is an uncertainty that runs to the heart of the Bill.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill had to be enacted over the next two weeks or it would be impossible to carry forward the consultation on the national curriculum. No argument could be more specious. The Secretary of State knows that the working parties are in operation and that he can establish shadow bodies and carry out the necessary consultation. The simple truth is that the national curriculum is a long way from formation because the Government rushed to legislation without having the courage and decency to consult teachers, parents or local authorities.
The same is true of testing. The Government have shifted their ground on a number of occasions. We are told that the Secretary of State is in favour of diagnostic testing. We suspect that other Ministers are not in favour of such testing. One has reason to believe that the Minister of State is opposed to diagnostic testing and supports the Prime Minister in the need for simple competitive testing. We have every reason to believe, if the newspaper reports are correct, that it would be in the interest of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), to support the Prime Minister in that argument. The simple fact is that, on the crucial issue of testing, the Government's position is as unclear as it was 12 months ago.
In terms of higher education, the Bill was transformed in the House of Lords. The Government have had no clearly defined position and no defined analysis and perception of the role of higher education. Nowhere has


that been made clearer than in an article by Lord Beloff in The Times last week. In relation to universities, the noble Lord said that there seemed to be disagreement, even among Ministers. The article said:
The Secretary of State … had praised the extent to which they"—
the universities—
had already adapted themselves to the new demands made upon them by economic and social change and was usually ready with soft reassurances.
How typical. The article went on:
On the other hand, the junior Minister for the universities, Robert Jackson, had left a trail of wounded feelings as he toured the universities to explain the Government's proposal.
That division on higher education goes to the heart of the Government's policy and image.
The guillotine is being used to protect an uncertain and weak ministerial team. Because of that uncertainty and weakness, Ministers lost the argument in Committee. They lost that argument and votes in the House of Lords. Because of that weakness and uncertainty, they seek to limit further debate. They know, as do all educationists, that the Bill will appear intemperate and irrelevant against the real educational needs of our children and our country. That is why we oppose the guillotine. There is a need for more time for debate and a proper education agenda for the country.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am sad to say that I have not been particularly impressed by the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) or, more recently, by those adduced by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). In Committee, the Opposition generally seemed a little hard put to find good arguments and they appeared to be supine before many of the arguments in support of the Bill put by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends.
I was somewhat astonished, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, Central say that it was important to have more time to discuss every item that comes before us after having been in the other place. For the record, let us be sure of what took place in Committee when we examined every clause and every amendment tabled. In Committee, the Opposition forced Divisions on 38 of the 147 clauses and on two of the 11 schedules. That does not appear to be an example of an Opposition firmly opposed to every part of the Bill.
Occasional reports have appeared in the education press—and even in national newspapers—that the hon. Member for Blackburn said that the national curriculum was not my right hon. Friend's idea but his, and that the Labour party had proposed it some time ago. Had that been the case, I would have found it difficult to understand the arguments made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He said that he did not agree with the proposals for the national curriculum. He would like to think that he proposed a national curriculum and, indeed, to put before the House and the other place proposals as good as those in the Bill.
Much concern has been expressed about consultation. The Bill has been discussed for well over a year. Indeed, it was discussed before the general election in June 1987. The public were aware of the Government's proposals and voted decisively, in the light of experience, for them. The

consultation procedure has continued ever since. The Department of Education and Science has received no fewer than 25,000 letters about the Bill, all of which have received a reply and none of which have produced further comments. Much of what has been said during the consultation process has been reflected in the various amendments.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is no longer present, said that the technical and vocational educational initiative would take up 30 per cent. of the national curriculum. The Opposition argue that if the national curriculum takes up 70 per cent. of the time, that leaves only 40 per cent. remaining. I hope that Opposition Members will at least have an opportunity to watch their children going through the mathematics curriculum. It will allow them to understand that 30 per cent. of the curriculum will not be for subjects specified as core and foundation subjects but for other subjects. Time for TVEI will also be taken up partly within scientific and mathematics curriculum subjects. Mathematics is an important subject. It has been shown to be especially important for some Opposition Members.
It is clear that there has been considerable discussion and much consultation. It is important therefore that the matters of concern to Opposition Members should be discussed, so I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 183.

Division No. 416]
[4.43 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Conway, Derek


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Couchman, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Durant, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Emery, Sir Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evennett, David






Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fennor, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gardiner, George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heddle, John
Mudd, David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Needham, Richard


Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Paice, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Irvine, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jack, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Janman, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Redwood, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Renton, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew





Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thorne, Neil


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thurnham, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tredinnick, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunlifle, Lawrence


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eadie, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buchan, Norman
Fatchett, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Fearn, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flannery, Martin


Cartwright, John
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Foster, Derek


Clay, Bob
Foulkes, George


Clelland, David
Fraser, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Fyfe, Maria


Cohen, Harry
Galbraith, Sam


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
George, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mildred
Litherland, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Loyden, Eddie


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McAllion, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAvoy, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Hardy, Peter
McKelvey, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
McLeish, Henry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McNamara, Kevin


Heffer, Eric S.
McWilliam, John


Hinchliffe, David
Madden, Max


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Home Robertson, John
Marek, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Maxton, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Meacher, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Illsley, Eric
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ingram, Adam
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Janner, Greville
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


John, Brynmor
Morgan, Rhodri


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Morley, Elliott


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Lambie, Oavid
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Lamond, James
Mullin, Chris


Leadbitter, Ted
Murphy, Paul


Leighton, Ron
Nellist, Dave





Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Spearing, Nigel


Parry, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis


Radice, Giles
Wall, Pat


Randall, Stuart
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Reid, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robertson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alun Michael.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Education Reform Bill

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to give you notice, but I have only just ascertained a possible problem. Mr. Speaker has grouped together a number of amendments to be considered first. I am in a slight dilemma, because I happen to support some of those amendments and to oppose others. I understand that under the terms of the guillotine motion it is not possible to have separate votes on specific Lords amendments. Is that correct, or will it be possible for an hon. Member to indicate support for some amendments but to dissent from others?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the time stated in the guillotine motion is reached, it will be possible to have a vote on the main amendment being discussed.

Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry but, as you will appreciate from the debate on the guillotine motion, the following debate is important. Do I take it that we shall debate Lords amendment No. 1 and amendment (a) thereto, together

"The curriculum for every maintained school shall comprise a basic curriculum which includes—
(a) provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school; and
(b) a curriculum for all registered pupils at the school of compulsory school age (to be known as "The National Curriculum") which meets the requirements of subsection (2) below.

(2) The curriculum referred to in subsection (1)(b) above shall comprise the core and other foundation subjects and specify"

Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 5, after 'school', insert
'in any area in respect of which an Order has been made by the Secretary of State and has come into effect'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 7, after 'National', insert
'Core Curriculum and the National Foundation'.

Amendment (d) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 10, after 'core' insert
'subjects which shall be mandatory'.

Amendment (e) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 10, after 'subjects' insert 'which shall be advisory'.

Lords amendments No. 3, 8 to 16, 147 to 185.

"(3) Subsection (1)(a) above shall not apply in the case of a maintained special school."

Lords amendment No. 186, in line 3, at end insert—
(1A) No proposals shall be published under this section for the purpose of making a significant change in the religious character of such a school unless the trustees of the school (if any) have given their consent in writing to the change in question.

Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'section', insert `(a)'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end insert—

with all the other amendments in the group? The implication of your ruling is that, if the Question is not put on the main amendment until the allocated time is reached, there will be no opportunity to vote on any of the other amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. If the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, together with amendment (a) thereto, were to run the full time it would be possible to have a Division on amendment (a) and on the amendment itself. The Chairman would then be obliged to put the rest of the Lords amendments en bloc.

Clause 1

DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRICULUM

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, leave out from "them" to "with" in line 18 and insert
by this Chapter with respect to religious education, religious worship and the National Curriculum".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, after "by" insert
'an Order made by the Secretary of State under'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'education', insert 'and'.
Amendment (c) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'worship', insert
'in respect of each local authority area'.
Lords amendment No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 6 and insert.

'(b) for the purpose of introducing any form of selection by ability at the school; or

(c) or the purpose of introducing any fees for educational provisions at the school, beyond that provided for under sections 95 to 100 below'.

Lords amendments Nos. 227, 476, 480 and 557.

Mr. Straw: Amendment (a) and the linked amendments provide that the arrangements written into the Bill for religious education and worship in each local authority area will come into effect by order by the Secretary of State as he becomes satisfied about them.
We have just under two hours in which to debate a crucial part of our public and national life. When religious education and worship were last discussed in the House on 23 March, I said:
I accept the importance of religious worship and education in schools".
I went on to say:
We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition."—[Official Report, 23 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 418.]
I was expressing my personal view. This issue cannot and never should be a party issue. The Opposition have already made it clear that there is no Whip and that Opposition Members are free to vote as their consciences dictates.
I also said that we would do well to remember that one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—has a capacity for great religious tension and strife. That point was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I said that we must remember how easily religious division can turn into tribal destructiveness; that there was a fine and delicate balance between the two.
In the Education Act 1944 Rab Butler did two things that guaranteed him a place in our history. First, the Act established a system of free education based upon principles of equality of opportunity. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, the Act secured a settlement in the great and divisive argument about the role of the Church and religion in schools. It may be trite to say that the 1944 settlement has stood the test of time, but it has. That is the considered view of the Opposition and it has also been the considered view of the Government. In the 1985 White Paper, "Better Schools", Lord Joseph, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, said:
the Government has no plans to propose changes in the provisions of the Education Act 1944 relating to religious education and collective worship in schools, provisions which have stood the test of time.
I hope that we shall see the Secretary of State in his place to hear this important debate. The consultative document, published last July, said that the Secretary of State
has no plans, therefore, to propose changes in what the law requires
in respect of religious education. Speaking for the Government in the House of Lords in February this year, the Earl of Arran said:
That schools in this country have successfully provided religious education and worship for many years is, I think, a testimony not only to the success of the Education Act but also to the tolerance and understanding of the British people in overcoming the barriers of different faiths and denominations.
He went to to say—a point that I shall put to the Secretary of State in this debate:
Evidence from Her Majesty's Inspectors shows very clearly that, generally, Christianity is still at the core of religious education in our schools … We would not wish to see a situation where children in maintained schools are divided into separate acts of worship for different religious groups."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 1483–85.]
That was the considered view of the Government and of the Secretary of State earlier this year. It was also a view that was repeated by the Secretary of State in our very good and constructive debate in the House on 23 March. He said:
The 1944 Act got the balance right."—[Official Report, 23 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 422.]
I agree with that, and the whole House agrees with that.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe some modest amendments to the structure of the 1944 settlement. He said that religious education should be defined statutorily before the core and foundation subjects. He said that he would wish to strengthen the arrangements for a locally agreed syllabus. My clear recollection and reading of his remarks in that debate is that he proposed no significant changes to the structure of religious worship in schools. That arrangement was acceptable to both sides of the House and there were no Divisions on that occasion.
In the same debate the view was expressed that a requirement that teaching and worship should be Christian should be written into the Bill. A separate view was expressed that not only that concept but, more specifically, the notion of the scriptures should be written into the Bill. On 23 March, the Secretary of State resisted that proposition. I believe that he was correct to do so then and that the House would be right to do so tonight.
We are a multi-cultural multi-faith, multi-religious and multi-denominational community, and we were even before the arrival of Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities in this country. Although the debate about the inclusion of the word "Christian" within a legal framework for religious education in a country with a Christian tradition may seem casuistical, the decision whether to incude those words raises profound issues of tolerance and questions about how we treat people who have different faiths from our own. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hear some hon. Members saying "Rubbish". It is those who take one view and seek to rubbish the views of others who have been the cause of religious strife arid intolerance in this country, which some of us thought we had dealt with in 1944 and again on 23 March. I hope that we do not hear any more such abuse of one view by people with another view during the debate.
When discussing such a sensitive issue, we should judge what should become law not by what is suitable for ourselves but by what is suitable for others, who may disagree with us. Those of us who regularly go to church know that we are in a minority. Those of us who take our children to church know that we are in an even smaller minority. We may regret that, but it is the truth. We must be careful about imposing our approach to family life and religion upon others. I think that that was the view taken by the Secretary of State on 23 March. It was certainly the view taken by the House of Lords in Committee on 3 May.
The Lord Bishop of London, with the support of the Government and the Opposition, sought to write into law the arrangement in respect of religious education that the Secretary of State had described on 23 March. Baroness Hooper said:
I am glad to be able to say that they"—
the amendments—
have our wholehearted support. I know also that they have the full support of the leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches. Today we have heard that they have the support of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I am sure that the Committee will agree that his ecumenical unanimity is a most welcome development."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 431.]
Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Baroness Cox and Lord Thorneycroft were entitled to their view. It is now a matter of public record that they decided that they wished the word Christian to be written into the Bill as a requirement in respect of religious 'education and worship. We know that they had the support of Professor Brian Griffiths and the Prime Minister. Baroness Cox is entitled to her view. She at least has the merit of having been consistent in this matter, although many hon. Members may find Lord Thorneycroft's latter-day conversion on the issue of religious education and worship strange. Days were spent on this issue as Baroness Cox and Lord Thorneycroft sought to impose what I regard as an intolerant structure in the law and prescribe that worship should be Christian.
I respect their views but they have failed to respect the views of other people, including people of the Christian


faith. They have failed to take into account those of no faith, those of other faiths and those who may have begun to have doubts about their faith.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have known for many years that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is most sincere in what he says. Is he aware, however, that he is taking an extremely dangerous line? Such arguments have almost led to the eclipse of religious education in schools. The argument that one should not teach Christianity for fear of offending people of other faiths has meant that there has been almost no Christian religious education in schools.

Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I say that that is a complete perversion of the position that I have taken. It shows the danger of intolerance in this respect. I said at the outset, and I say again, that I accept the importance of religious worship and education in schools. I made that point clearly on 23 March as well. It does not raise a difficulty for me, because I am a Christian and I raise my children in the Christian tradition. The problem for those of us who wish for a tolerant society is how far we impose our views on other people. Some of us should think about that carefully. I also said then:
We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition."—[Official Report, 23 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 418.]
I accept that, broadly, included in religious education and worship ought to be an acknowledgement that we are a Christian country. The question is how far we write that into the law and when we do so, how we deal with people of other faiths—Jewish, Moslem or Hindu—or of no faith at all.
I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that Christianity has departed from religious education and worship in our schools. That is not my experience with my children in an ILEA school and it is not the experience of Her Majesty's Ministers. I quote again the Earl of Arran, speaking on behalf of the Government on 26 February. He said:
Evidence from Her Majesty's Inspectors shows very clearly that, generally, Christianity is still at the core of general education in our schools."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 1485.]
It is no good the hon. Member for Ealing, North saying that my views are dangerous, because those views were accepted by the House on 23 March. There is some ambiguity in the law, but there has to be because there is a fine balance between securing a curriculum which reflects our country's Christian tradition and going overboard and seeking to impose that on people who do not have that faith. On 23 March, the Secretary of State arrived at the correct balance and we already know—and I can give quotations in support of this—that the structure that has been agreed in the other place, and on which we are now having a short debate, is unsettling and destabilising to the 1944 settlement.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my hon. Friend remember that in Committee, when this narrow approach was put forward by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), I pointed out that we are a multi-faith society and that the narrow approach that he was suggesting would antagonise those of other faiths—Hindus, Moslems and so on—who in time would need

their own schools? To his credit, the Secretary of State also opposed that narrow position. He did not use the language that I have used, because he was speaking to his own people, but he did not agree with it, and I see that he is not rising to say that he agrees with it now.

Mr. Straw: That is true. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State supported the approach that we are now taking.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the provisions of the Education Act 1944 were such as to lead to the possible interpretation both that the standing advisory conference on further education should not contain any non-Christian beliefs and that the religious education curriculum should not contain any non-religious beliefs either? Specifically, Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 strengthen non-Christian religious education and the act of collective worship in schools for non-Christians.

Mr. Straw: I am not arguing about the strengthening of the role or the composition of the standing advisory council on religious education in each area—not the standing advisory conference on further education. I have already said that we support the arrangements that the Secretary of State flagged out when he spoke on 23 March. Our concern is about the Baroness Cox arrangements, which were forced on the other place, to write into the Bill that teaching should be Christian. That imposes a duty that many people who have to teach religious education in schools do not want of adjudicating and invigilating on exceptions area by area, class by class and pupil by pupil. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Lords amendment No. 15. Unfortunately, what was agreed—in this House after a sensible debate, in Committee, and, on 3 May, in the other place—was not the end of the matter. For days and weeks, Baroness Cox and Lord Thorneycroft waged a guerrilla campaign in the other place with the full support of the Prime Minister.
The final outcome is not as unsatisfactory as it might have been, and I pay tribute to the Bishop of London and peers on both sides who did their best to retrieve the situation. However, it is still unsatisfactory, and that needs to be made clear. A sign of that is that no one who was involved in putting together that compromise—for that is what it was—and to whom I have spoken has told me that that is a structure that they would wish. However, that is the best that they could get away with in the face of pressure from Lord Thorneycroft, Baroness Cox and those behind her.
5.15 pm
A subject as sensitive as this—the structure of religious education and worship that the country has to follow—should not be consequential on a deal struck in an unelected Chamber by people whom I regard as being over-zealous in their approach to religious education, to put it at its lowest. It should be unacceptable for such a change in the structure to be written into the Bill without any possibility of amendment in this House. We shall not even have the opportunity to vote amendment by amendment on what was decided in the other place. The House could approve of some of those amendments, but we wish to vote against some others. All the amendments are to be put by the Chair at one go, at 6.45, and we have literally to take it or leave it.
I have explained why the compromise is unsatisfactory. Lords amendment No. 10 says that religious worship should be
wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
Lords amendment No. 15 says that the standing advisory councils should be given powers to allow exemptions of a school, class or group of pupils. The previous system was a little ambiguous, but it worked well. I have already quoted the view of the Earl of Arran in the other place. He quoted Her Majesty's inspectors. A week ago, we learnt from The Guardian that a report on religious education and worship by the inspectorate has apparently got lost or been suppressed. I offer the Secretary of State a chance to intervene to tell us what has happened to that report. Why was it not published? Why did the House not have the benefit of seeing whatever it said—good, bad or indifferent?

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Gentleman knows the constitutional proprieties. It is entirely up to the senior chief inspector to decide which report is published, at what time it is to be published and the content of the report. I do not interfere in that.

Mr. Straw: I know the proprieties, but surely it is possible for the Secretary of State to send a minute to the senior chief inspector to ask that the report be published. Could not the Secretary of State have asked for that?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that one of the great strengths of our system is that the inspectorate is independent. It can report on anything that it wishes in the school system. It can report on any school or on any curriculum activity. Ministers of the day do not interfere. That is the established position. They are Her Majesty's inspectors.

Mr. Straw: I understand the proprieties, but we are all grown up lads and lasses here. I also understand that the history of the publication of the annual HMI report on the quality of education, over the past seven years, shows that the date has been directly related to whether there has been a general election in the offing. Ministers have some control over the publication of such reports. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), the Under-Secretary, is giving us a rum smile. We should have had that report. The Secretary of State's explanation is not satisfactory.
The previous evidence, according to those who had bothered to look at it, was that the old system was satisfactory and had stood the test of time. It was a little ambiguous, but we need ambiguity if tolerance is to be preserved. The new arrangement, forced into the Bill without any adequate discussion in the House, may well be a recipe for local conflict. That is one reason why the arrangements in amendment (a)—I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that amendment (a) is acceptable—should be introduced by order, area by area, and after a long gestation period.
We are also deeply unhappy about the whole structure of this aspect of the Bill. If it was not appropriate to write "Christian" into the Bill in 1944, when the country was overwhelmingly Christian, it is surely even less appropriate to do so today.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely that remark is not terribly profound. In 1944 it was taken

for granted that this was a Christian society. There have been many changes since then and if we wish to acknowledge that this is a Christian society and that our civilisation is based on Christianity, it is necessary to write it into the Bill.

Mr. Straw: On the contrary, we should not confuse churches and schools. Children should be brought up to recognise that we have a Christian tradition in this country and to recognise the importance and power of faith, but Christianity and individual churches will survive in this country only on the basis of what they do, not what they write into the law for schools to do. That is a profound difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to the desperate trouble caused in England in 1944. What does the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) think that 1688 was about? It was about resolving a great religious conflict that had torn the country apart for two centuries.
Subsequently, in 1944, there was an understanding of the need to be careful and to provide some ambiguity in the law to prevent religious intolerance breaking out aga:in. That view was accepted in the House just three months ago. What has changed, apart from the pressures that have been brought to bear by Downing street and Baroness Cox in the other place?

Mr. Spearing: Would my hon. Friend include the years 1900 to 1906 in his comments? At that time, people went to prison for refusing to pay rates and there was considerable community disruption as a result. Does he further agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), whom I respect, said, under the amendments, all non-church and non-voluntary schools will produce Christianity as a state religion? Those who do not attend voluntary schools, where the Church of England may make what arrangements it likes, will now be subject to a regime to which they were not subject under the 1944 Act.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the House will take note of his comments, as his devotion as a Methodist is well known.

Mr. Conal Gregory: By agreeing with his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), does the hon. Gentleman not confirm that the Labour party wants disestablishment or denationalisation of the Church? I should like to hear what evidence Opposition Front-Bench Members have to show that there is any conformity with the 1944 Act, because, in York, that is certainly not the case. No school there currently complies with the Act.

Mr. Straw: First, I stress that I am speaking personally. The Labour party has no policy on this issue. We regard it as a matter of conscience. I hope that the Conservative party does, too, if there is any spirit of tolerance left in that party. Secondly, the comments of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) are confounded by what Her Majesty's inspectors said, which was quoted with approval by the Earl of Arran in February. Thirdly, if there is a lack of conformity in this area, that could be dealt with perfectly adequately through the arrangements agreed by this House on 23 March to strengthen the standing advisory council. The Secretary of State accepted that view.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that he is incorrect in his comments about the Labour party? Will he remind him that the Church in Wales, which is part of the Anglican communion, is already disestablished? The problem does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Straw: I regard that as an inappropriate and unfortunate change. It has already unsettled and caused concern to Moslems. The National Moslem Education Council, meeting after the House of Lords had concluded its deliberations on 9 July, expressed concern about the changes made there and about what it described as a serious situation. It also expressed strong feelings about the need for other changes to be written into the Bill, which will not now be written into the Bill, if those changes were to go ahead.
We should certainly take note of the Religious Education Council of England and Wales because it has the job of delivering this part of the law. It takes the view that this is not the appropriate way to proceed. When it was asked to comment on the Secretary of State's consultative paper last July, it said that it would be better to leave the 1944 settlement where it was. Mr. Brian Gates, chairman of the council, has authorised me to quote him as saying:
We are apprehensive about amendment (15) which makes specific requirements for Christian collective worship".
The council is also concerned about the standing advisory council's duty to invigilate and adjudicate upon applications to opt out.
This afternoon, we are asked to abandon a major plank of the 1944 settlement. When the House of Lords was considering the matter, it spent weeks on it. We are asked to secure that abandonment in less than two hours. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South expressing equal concern about that, whatever his personal views on the issue.

Mr. Cormack: I did not vote for the guillotine.

Mr. Straw: Such major and important changes should be made only after lengthy and careful deliberation. None of that has been possible here. For that reason alone, whatever hon. Members' views on the merits of the issue, we should reject the amendments from the other place and revert to a system that has, as the Secretary of State said less than three months ago, stood the test of time. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in the Lobbies tonight.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I ask the House not to pass the amendment, but I appreciate that it has been moved to initiate a debate on this important group of amendments. I wish to explain the Government's view on the matter and where we stand now that the Bill and the amendments have come back from the other place.
Some hon. Members may recall that, in my Third Reading speech three months ago, I said that I could not recall a previous debate on religious education in my 20 years in the House. The fact that we have a second debate during the passage of the Bill shows the importance that hon. Members attach to the matter, and I welcome that.
The general inattention given to religious education and worship in past years has contributed to their decline in schools. The provisions contained in the Bill constitute

a major step in reversing that decline and in ensuring that religious education and worship have a real value and meaning in schools.

Mr. Spearing: The Government cannot do it by law.

Mr. Baker: The 1944 Act did not seek to do it by law.
The amendments included in the Bill in another place have their roots in two separate, though linked, concerns. The first is to ensure that religious education is established as a central element in the basic curriculum of all maintained schools. The second is to secure that proper regard is paid to our nation's Christian heritage and traditions, in the content of both religious education and collective worship.
I strongly resist the implication of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that that leads to a degree of intolerance. There are many safeguards in the amendment that ensure against intolerance. No. hon. Members would support the intolerant imposition of one faith or one denomination in our schools or society.
5.30 pm
The Government have sought all along to ensure that religious education is not devalued or marginalised as a result of our proposals for the national curriculum. Measures were therefore introduced in the Bill from the outset to strengthen the position of religious education. The hon. Member for Blackburn implied that this had happened rather late in the day, but he was generous enough to recognise when the Bill was originally introduced as well as in Committee and on Report that we have sought to strengthen the position of religious education, placing an obligation on head teachers, local education authorities and governing bodies to ensure that it takes place. Following discussions with Church leaders, a famous agreement was reached earlier this year on a package of further strengthening measures, which I was able to announce to the House on Third Reading, and hon. Members were as one in welcoming the changes agreed. The changes, which were introduced into the Bill in another place by the Bishop of London, placed religious education firmly alongside the core and other foundation subjects but, in effect as primus inter pares. Religious education will thus be part of the basic curriculum for all pupils, alongside the national curriculum.
To oversee the provision of religious education in schools, the amendments provide for standing advisory councils for religious education to be compulsory in all local education authorities. Some already exist, having been set up following the 1944 Act, but some have fallen into disuse. Authorities will be required to review their agreed syllabuses for religious education when asked to do so by their standing advisory council. The amendments ensure that within the broad statutory framework the content of religious education will be determined locally. I emphasise that there is no question of imposition of religious education by the Government or from the centre. The amendments also preserve the existing local agreed syllabus arrangements which the churches and the Government value and wish to retain. It is important that these matters have been satisfactorily resolved with the agreement of all concerned. The House should be in no doubt that the Government now intend to ensure that the new statutory provisions are properly adhered to.
With regard to the Christian content of religious education and collective worship, the remaining amendments introduced in another place have addressed the nature both of religious education and of collective worship. Here I acknowledge that the debate has moved on. These are questions which raise fundamental issues of conscience and I fully recognise that hon. Members in all parts of the House will have strongly held views and will wish to vote as they see fit on these matters. Nevertheless, it is important to set out the Government's position. Our position is quite clear. We fully support the amendments introduced into the Bill by the Bishop of London. I have had extensive consultations with him in the past few months as well as with representatives of other faiths and religions in this country. In our view, the amendments confirm the intention of the 1944 Act in recognising the rightful place of Christianity within the religious education provided in schools.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How extensive were the consultations with teachers, and is the Secretary of State satisfied that there are sufficient teachers to carry out the provisions? Will he explain the implications for the many agnostics and atheists who have been happy to carry out the religious education requirements of the 1944 Act but who are uncertain whether they are to be excluded from this area of education in the future?

Mr. Baker: It is difficult for an agnostic or an atheist to instruct children in religious education. I find that an extraordinary proposition, as an atheist does not believe in any kind of theistic philosophy.

Mr. Michael Latham: I was present at a meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews at which senior rabbis expressed considerable concern about the proposals. Will my right hon. Friend say more about his consultations with representatives of other faiths and reassure Members such as myself who wish to support the Lords amendments?

Mr. Baker: I will come to that in a moment. So far, I have explained how the Bishop of London acted not just as spokesman for the Church of England but, in effect, as negotiator for the Catholic and Methodist churches and the Jewish faith as well as those who speak for the Moslem faith in this country. The proposals agreed in another place reflect the agreement of all those areas of the Christian communion and other denominations. I therefore assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that the amendments emerge from a long process of negotiation.
As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said earlier, when Rab Butler introduced the 1944 legislation it was essentially a religious settlement which he had taken a great deal of time to negotiate with Archbishop Temple and others in the preceding two years. That is clear not just from the Act but from the memoirs of Rab himself and others who have written about that Act. It was implicit in the 1944 Act that religious education meant Christian education because at that time the only other religion represented in this country in any numbers was the Jewish religion. That is no longer the case, and many other faiths are devoutly held and strongly supported in this country.
As I have said, there was strong pressure from many individuals and groups for greater definition of the Christian content of religious education. Interestingly, the official Labour spokesman in the other House, Lord Morton of Shuna, did not vote against any of the amendments on Christian collective worship and Christian religious education. He said :
My Lords, we from this Front Bench support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on achieving what I would regard as an almost impossible task of realising, in the main, a consensus."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 435.]
I do not wish to make any political point about this.

Mr. Straw: The House of Lords had weeks of debate on this highly sensitive issue. We are being asked to agree the changes with only an hour and 10 minutes left to debate them. Does the Secretary of State regard that as satisfactory?

Mr. Baker: These matters have been well bruited about and well debated. They have been well covered in the press and in the general reporting of what happened in the House of Lords.
I repeat that many individuals and groups were pressing for a clearer definition of religious education and collective worship. Speaking on behalf of the Anglican Church, but with the agreement of the Catholic and Methodist Churches—I met representatives of both—and of representatives of the Jewish and Moslem faiths, the Bishop of London was able to reach a series of agreements. Negotiations were complex and difficult and in my many meetings with bishops of the Church of England and the Catholic Church in the past few months I have been constantly reminded that bishops move diagonally. Nevertheless, in all the discussions and debates I tried to find a way through those very difficult negotiations, and I believe that the outcome is satisfactory.
Many people felt that the Christian element in worship and religious education had been watered down and in some cases had virtually disappeared. Yet our society has developed historically within a Christian background. That faith was brought to these islands by Saint Augustine and has woven its way through our history. It is the weft and warp of our country and any understanding of our country without an understanding of that background is poor and inadequate. For example, as many hon. Members pointed out in the debate in March, it has had a profound effect on the development of our language and on the moral and social development of our country.
Certainly, fewer people now attend church and formally observe Christian traditions than was the case in 1944, as the hon. Member for Blackburn stated, but many who are not regularly practising Christians still turn to the church at solemn and important moments of their family lives, such as birth, marriage and death. Moreover, the Christian festivals of Christmas, Easter and Whitsun for many people have a meaning above that of merely another national holiday. Whether or not children come from a Christian background, it is right that they should receive a good understanding of the nation's Christian heritage and tradition. That point was made strongly by the Chief Rabbi in another place. At the same time, however, the amendments make very specific provision for agreed religious education syllabuses to take account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.
The amendments specify that collective worship should be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. But they also allow for the majority of schools to take account of the family background of pupils in deciding on the nature of such worship. The amendments also provide for schools in which Christian worship would be inappropriate. In such cases it will be open to the head teacher to apply to the standing advisory council to relieve the school of the duty to provide worship that is wholly or mainly Christian. I recognise that in some schools Christian worship would not be appropriate, and it is right that the Bill should acknowledge this.
The Bill also now re-enacts the provisions of the Education Act 1944 in ensuring that all parents will have a right to withdraw their children from religious education or collective worship should they so wish. There is no concept or intention that a specific type of worship or religious education should be thrust down the throats of children when they or their parents do not want it. There will be nothing to stop schools allowing or helping to arrange separate religious education or acts of worship according to different faiths or denominations in circumstances where children are withdrawn. That practice is quite common in many schools.
These provisions constitute a considerable improvement to the Bill as it left the House. As I have said, they are the results of detailed consultation by the Bishop of London, and he is to be complimented on his efforts.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I should like to conclude my speech.
The bishop has gone to great lengths to seek the views of others with a direct interest, including not only the leaders of different faiths and religious denominations, but the local authority and teacher associations as well as parents' and governors' organisations. The amendments allow for flexibility in dealing with different local circumstances. I am confident that they will continue to encourage truly collective worship in schools, which the Government believe to be of such importance in maintaining harmony and bringing the school and pupils together. At the same time the amendments take full account of the needs and aspirations of different faiths. I hope that the House will recognise that the amendments are the product of very careful consideration in order to meet a variety of concerns, and that they will be of long-term benefit to schools and to society as a whole.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to be called immediately after the Minister because one factual matter must be correct. In view of the speed with which events have moved, perhaps I have misunderstood the matter. I do not dissent from the objectives outlined in the Secretary of State's speech. He spoke frequently about consultations by the noble prelate the Bishop of London. I hope that he will be precise about the parts of the amendments about which those extensive consultations have taken place. My understanding is that the consultations were about the non-controversial amendments that we discussed on Third Reading, especially those about the status and nature of religious education within the curriculum.
I understand that the consultations did not apply to the more controversial clauses, about which my hon. Friend

the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spoke, about writing in "mainly Christian" and "Christian", both of which terms were absent from the 1944 Act. Perhaps the Secretary of State will now tell the House about the degree of consultation in which the noble prelate and his friends participated other than with people such as Baroness Cox who introduced earlier amendments.
As I ascertained in a point of order, we are invited to take a single vote on both sets of amendments. I strongly support the retention of religious education in the compulsory curriculum of schools, but I dissent from the other amendments produced by the noble prelate. Perhaps the Secretary of State will now enlighten us about which set of amendments received very full consultation.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: They all did.

Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State assures the House that they all did. I find that almost impossible to believe, because the final version of amendments Nos. 8 to 16, to which I take exception, were not available in printed form until after Third Reading in the other place. I spoke only this week to the secretary of the Christian Education Movement and asked whether he had seen them. He had not. This morning I spoke to religious education officers in my local education authority and they had not seen them. They know the broad thrust and outline because they have seen them in the newspapers.
There has not been the time for negotiation and consultation on amendments Nos. 8 to 16 that there has been for amendment No. 2. If the Secretary of State wishes to say anything about that I shall gladly give way. Otherwise I shall move on, having made a fundamental and crucial point.
The difference between the Opposition and Conservative Members is fairly narrow. I must declare an interest which I never thought I would have to declare in the House. For 40 years I have been a member of the Congregational, now the United Reformed, Church. I attempt to be a practising Christian in every respect. For 14 years I was a religious education teacher, at least part time, as well as teaching other subjects in a London secondary school. Therefore, I start from the same start line as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. I hope that I am a practising Christian and that I shall develop in that way throughout my life. I have something in common with at least some Conservative Members.
5.45 pm
We are being asked to replace words in the 1944 Act that, up to a point, have stood the test of time with more specific words. Times are changing and we need to be reminded of our heritage and the extent to which religious belief has influenced and shaped this place and certainly our nation, its constitution and some of its public ways and benefits. Therefore, I understand the intention and appreciate the aims, but I disagree on the way in which this is to be done. Conservative Members wish it to be enshrined in law.
I intervened during the speech of the Secretary of State to say that the Minister cannot use law to reverse the decline in religious education. I did not mean that such an intention could not be put on the statute book. Of course that can be done. Religious education was put on the statute book as the only compulsory subject, but it has


been done shockingly badly. In that respect I attack my own Christian churches. They had a special place by law and did not discharge their stewardship and responsibility. As I have said, I did my bit to help.
After consultation, the 1944 Act offered some innate flexibility. I understand the aspirations of Conservative Members, but changing that Act will not achieve what they want. One of the reasons for that is that religious education is different from other subjects. Religion cannot be taught. It is caught and not taught and is qualitative and not quantitative. It is an offering, not something that is injected or taken.
I understand and share the great wish that we should return to some of the moral imperatives that made this country what it was. Some of the moral imperatives in our public life could do with a little more attention. I do not want to be party political about that, although I could be. Whether one can do that by compulsorily injecting religion into the bloodstream of people is questionable. The injection may result in inoculating people against the very thing that one wishes to offer. As religious education teachers will know, we often come up against people who have been badly taught religious education and are impervious even to a religious view of life, let alone any specific denominational view.
We cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility by taking the law into our hands. We have not provided for proper religious education even under the 1944 Act. I do not understand how we can do so with this measure. The Bishop of London acknowledged that everything depended on the job being carried out, and the necessary people are not available to implement the provisions that are set out in the 1944 Act. How are we to get the necessary people to carry out the provisions that we are discussing?
The problems that will be involved in implementation may wreck the objective that the Secretary of State has outlined. We are bringing definitions of Christianity into law—what is "mainly Christian"? We know that there have been court cases on issues related to religious education, and there will be more. We have before us seven pages of legal complexity, and these will provide a feast for lawyers.
Headmasters, especially in Newham, are battling to try to create corporate toleration in a sea of social and religious problems. Schools should have the chance to inculcate a degree of tolerance, understanding and unity. That chance should continue to be open to schools in the retention of the act of corporate worship, and among the other things in which I was involved in my teaching career was conducting and arranging religious assemblies. I know that it is a difficult task.
If the Bill is enacted it will lead to division, especially in multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious areas. It is true that under the 1944 Act, Jewish children in secondary schools can be separated from Christians. They have their assemblies at different times, for example. There has been pragmatism and understanding. We are now to proceed by law. I have spoken to teaching advisers, who have told me that there is alarm among head teachers about the additional problems that they will face. There is enough competition between members of different ethnic backgrounds as it is, and introducing legal requirements for assemblies and religious education may well exacerbate the problems. There are great risks. For that reason alone, I suggest that these provisions should not be written into the Bill.
Definitions of Christianity can vary greatly. I do not believe that there has been sufficient consultation with those who will have to do the job, despite the Secretary of State's assurances. It is wrong in principle for any hon. Member to agree to the amendments in the absence of proper consultation with those who will be involved. We are being invited to pass the amendments lock, stock and barrel. I am much in favour of amendment No. 2, but I disagree strongly with the views behind amendments Nos. 6 to 18. As you said in your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not have an opportunity in the Lobby to express my support of one amendment and my disapproval of others. It is all or nothing. I shall have to vote in the Aye Lobby because I am opposed to certain of the amendments and not because I am against compulsory religious education. In Newham and in other multi-cultural areas throughout the country, we shall be in danger of exacerbating existing problems.
In 1659, the then Chaplain to this place wrote a prayer. I believe that that Christian prayer has been read on every occasion that the House has sat since that date. Hon. Members who attend Prayers will know its words. It asks for wisdom from above
to direct and guide us in all our consultations".
Our consultations are not confined to those that take place here and in another place. They include consultation with those whom we represent and those who will have to do the work that will result from the provisions that we are now discussing. The prayer continues:
the publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and states within the same".
I am sorry to say that, in my judgment, the amendments will not achieve that. Therefore, we should not agree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Michael Alison: I suspect that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I have a good deal in common in this area, although we may have differences in others. I disagree, however, with a significant part of his argument for rejecting writing Christianity into the Bill. He said that it would demoralise and do nothing to raise the standards, motivation, zeal and numbers of those committed to teaching Christianity by example, lifestyle and expertise.
Without sounding too partisan, I make my point by using the analogy of what is happening in the Labour party. If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) succeed in becoming the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party, it will be because it is believed that the projection of clear and distinctive Socialist policies will encourage enthusiasm and abandon or torpedo the apathy that is currently the enemy of the Labour party. We believe that exactly the same principle applies in restoring Christianity to the centrality of the Bill. It will encourage and mobilise. It will give hope to those who are presently dormant and apathetic, who are waiting for a clear trumpet note to be sounded. The writing of Christianity into the Bill will do exactly that.

Mr. Anderson: If the right hon. Gentleman continues with that line, he may deter many of us who are determined to vote for the amendments.

Mr. Alison: I said deliberately that I would use an analogy. The hon. Gentleman is well enough educated to know what an analogy means and when one fails to amount to demonstrable proof.
I hope that the House will see fit to endorse the amendments. They are related to education, not indoctrination. They make ample provision for the teaching and practices of other principal religions which are represented in Great Britain. They uphold the traditional rights of parents to withdraw their children from religious education or worship. They have gained support from the Chief Rabbi, among others, as well as individual Moslems who are concerned with religious education. They accord with the wishes and aspirations of the great mass of British parents, both past and present. For all its secularism today, Britain remains, in my view, a Christian society. In T. S. Eliot's oft quoted words:
A society has not ceased to be Christian until it has become positively something else.
The 1983 survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys concluded that the number of children in state schools whose country of origin disposed them to have a non-Christian cultural heritage was a little under 4 per cent. The comprehensive Bible Society-Gallup Poll survey of 1986 yielded the fact that 85 per cent. of the population liked to think of itself as Christian. I remind the House that the distinguished historian, Lord Blake, has written of the Christian religion as follows:
It is quite impossible to understand its political and cultural developments unless one understands the nature of religion which under changing forms and differing institutions permeated the consciousness of men and women, conditioned their ideas, shaped their politics and inspired so much of their culture.
I conclude by reminding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a by-way of scripture that I fear will become tediously well trodden in the context of the Butler Act of 1944 and the Baker Act of 1988. There is a famous Old Testament story in Genesis, chapter 40, about Joseph in Egypt. Joseph was able to interpret the dreams of the Pharoah's chief butler and chief baker. One of them was lifted up to his former glory, while the other was lifted up on the gallows. I need not tell this well-educated House whether the butler or the baker was placed on the gallows. If any hon. Member does not know, that demonstrates the need for a greater emphasis to be placed on religious education.
Suffice to say that I believe that the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be lifted up with esteem and gratitude for the courage, sympathy and dedication with which he has helped to negotiate and bring to fruition one of the most fundamental and significant improvements in the provision of education—above all, in religious education—in this country that we have seen for many centuries. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved and hope very much that the House will endorse the amendment.

6 pm

Mr. Greville Janner: In the beginning, before God created heaven and earth, there was chaos and confusion. This Bill will have the same effect because it has not had the careful consideration that it requires to deal with religious education, which is one of the most sensitive issues.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House because I believe that I am the only person here from a

minority religion—[Interruption]—at least, the only such hon. Member who intends to take part in the debate. I remember with great hurt, my suffering as a child, through having to take part in Christian assemblies in Canada during the war. I remember the fear that I felt as Easter approached each year. My school mates, who were normally on very good terms with me, accused me of having personally killed Christ. I remember how I loathed, feared and resented having to take part in those assemblies.
I fully appreciate that in the great and respected Christian tradition of this country, it is an enormous privilege for the grandson of four Jewish immigrants to represent a constituency in which there are practically no Jewish people, but where there is a majority of Christians, many of whom are non-practising, and a considerable minority of Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs. People are good enough to accept me for what I am and to allow me to attend their school assemblies, for what they are. I pay tribute to the teachers in so many of the multi-ethnic, multi-faith schools who try to make the children feel at home, whatever their religion. Some of the children greet me with Hebrew songs when I visit them.
Others submit Hindu children to Christian practices. I have always believed that that was wrong. It is true that people can opt out. It is also true that, two generations back, Jewish people did not know their rights, did not necessarily speak the English language, and often did not exercise their rights. I am ill at ease about the opting-out principle that permeates this legislation.
It was right for Lord Campbell of Alloway to seek to include an amendment
to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths".
I am sorry that that has been excluded. I am not encouraged by the statement that a circular will be issued by the Department which will confirm the intention. I have no faith in circulars.
Much mention has been made of my dear and respected friend and leader, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi. It will not come as a complete surprise to hon. Members, who have heard that there are one or two dissenting voices within the Christian faith and some difficulty even in defining Christianity, to realise that possibly there are occasional difficulties in other faiths as not all accept everything that their leaders say. However, Lord Jakobovits was very careful to say:
when I originally read the proposed new amendments in cold print, I was greatly perplexed, confused and in part considerably worried. But, having now listened to the exegesis of the right reverend Prelate, and particularly also the interpretations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others, I feel immensely relieved and indeed, encouraged."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 440.]
I hope that I will not be considered disloyal to my noble Friend the Chief Rabbi if I state that I do not feel that same sense of encouragement and relief. I believe in the printed word. As a lawyer and Queen's counsel I know to my cost and pleasure that courts interpret not what is said in exegesis by a noble Prelate, Baroness or Lord, but what is written into statute. I do not believe that what it is now proposed to write into statute provides the proper basis for what is now a multi-religious society, whatever polls referred to in this House may show.
In the country overall, the polls may be correct. However, Britain is spotted and dappled with areas of


religious minority interest. I speak not simply as a member of the Jewish faith, but as an hon. Member who proudly represents constituents of all faiths. I believe that the needs and interests of the newer religions should have the greatest attention paid to them in the Bill. That attention is lacking.
I pay tribute to the goodwill and intentions of the Secretary of State and his colleagues on this issue. I know that these provisions are not intended to do an unkindness. I appreciate that one of the glories of this great tradition of Christianity in this country is respect for the smaller religions and minority groups. I respectfully submit that they are not properly dealt with in the Bill. That is why I shall vote for the Opposition amendment and against the Lords amendment.

Mr. Gregory: The section dealing with morning assembly and religious education is one of the most important aspects of the Bill.
We do not today find the majority of schools following the tenet of the Education Act 1944, but teachers should appreciate that Britain is fundamentally a Christian country, as was said so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
Parents and guardians expect a Christian ethic to be specifically manifested on a daily basis in the collective act of worship and less frequently in a programme of religious education. All young people should have the opportunity to learn the fundamental principles of the Christian faith. If they come from a religious background which finds it impossible to accept that at school, the Bill clearly allows them to opt out. It may surpise some people to learn that, sad to say, these clauses are required. Clearly we have moved a long way from the standards set following the Education Act 1944 which are not being upheld in many schools.
I was so concerned about that fact that I carried out a survey of schools in York funded by the local authority. Of those which responded, only one secondary school and 12 out of 26 primary schools held a daily collective act of worship. Clearly there is a case for much more inquiry by school governors and for monitoring by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
In a city with a strong Christian ethic and little evidence of other faiths, it is incredible that children, even of primary school age, can be confused by a syllabus that seeks to compare different religions before a good grounding has been given in Christianity. Yet that is the experience even in York primary schools. Some even deny visits by Christian ministers.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the hon. Member accept that one of the difficulties of delivering the Education Act 1944 is the shortage of available teachers and resources? It is a major source of concern to religious education teachers that we are passing legislation that is totally unworkable. The resources are not available, and they are unhappy about this legislation.

Mr. Gregory: I do not accept either of those tenets. Resources do not need to take the form of the most ultra-modern videos, and suchlike. If any school cannot provide teachers with a genuinely strong Christian background—and I have yet to find one that cannot—there are visiting ministers who, on a denominational basis, will be very happy to provide support.

Mr. Elliot Morley: rose—

Mr. Gregory: I must move on, because of the hour. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will understand.
The problems that I have mentioned are not confined to York. The law on collective acts of worship and religious education is not being complied with in Newcastle, on Tyneside, in Doncaster, and in many parts of southern England. With the passing of this Bill, it will be essential for the Secretary of State to issue a circular, to which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has referred, spelling out the terms and spirit of the Act in relation to both morning assembly and religious education. I hope that there will be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to refer to that aspect, because there has been confusion in the past. With the passing of the Bill, we shall have clarity and certainty. Schools, and the vast majority of teachers, will accept and welcome that.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I spoke in the 23 March debate which related specifically to the place and status of religious education. As the Secretary of State has reminded us, the debate has since moved on. Even in that earlier debate, anxiety was expressed by both sides of the House about violation of the Education Act 1944. The House has just heard from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) why there was concern. Worry was also expressed on 23 March about the content of religious education and about worship at particular schools, or where the multi-faith approach has been adopted to the extent that all faiths are trivialised, as was observed by the Chief Rabbi in another place.
There has also been consequential concern about the need to protect the integrity of Christianity and of other world religions. As a result—and it seems that this needs to be repeated, in view of what has passed in this debate—discussions have taken place with representatives of all the major Christian churches, representatives of other faiths, those representing local authorities, teachers' unions, parents' and governors' organisations, and educational organisations such as the Religious Education Council.
6.15 pm
The Bishop of London reported in another place that he and his colleagues received widespread support; none whom he and they consulted wishes to oppose the amendment. While affirming clearly the place of Christianity, the changes in the agreed syllabus provide for a flexibility of emphasis in areas where the vast majority of pupils are from other faiths. Similar provisions are made for worship. However, where the occasion requires—for example, in a school in which the family tradition is predominantly Moslem—the act of worship can draw on that tradition. The advice of the standing advisory councils and the use of the complaints procedure must be available in that respect. All that has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, but it is necessary again to place it on the record.
I cannot see where the charge of imposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) arises. His dissent falls into three categories. First, he is concerned about any disturbance of the 1944 Act. Secondly, he is concerned that the churches are being allowed to make


their failure to reach the parents a reason for the statutory right to access to their children. Thirdly he is concerned about other faiths held, notably, by ethnic minorities.
I do not believe that those are valid objections. What went wrong after the Education Act 1944 was that the churches did not involve themselves in the teaching of religion in schools. That attitude is changing and there is a greater confidence among the churches today, and they will now take a positive lead. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) reminded us, we are now dealing with a fundamentally changed situation. Recently, our religious life has been enriched by those outside the Judeo-Christian religion. West Indian children, of course, have a Christian cultual tradition. The parents of children of the Hindu and Moslem faiths expect their religion to be transmitted in the home, and are content for their children to learn in school about the religion of the host country.
Over the weekend, I consulted yet again with the Moslem ethnic community's leader in the east end of Sheffield. He reminded me that nothing more insults him and his colleagues in their deep religious faith than the teaching of bits of alternative religions with no feeling for the depth of conviction of the faith of their adherents. We have—dare I say it?—an excellent relationship, and it is based largely on strongly held convictions on both sides. They do not reject the view that the story of Christianity should be told to their children, because they believe that their children cannot understand the nature of our country unless they are told that story. They join us in acknowledging that—as was said by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison)—no one can understand our heritage in art, music and literature without having a deep knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Few if any of us believe that children can grow up with a genuine sense of moral purpose without a grounding in religion. However, I believe that in this country, the basic values of the Christian religion should also be known and taught. Morality, detached from its theological or philosophical foundations, would be no more than a series of arbitrary commands, with little claim on the allegiance of the heart or the mind. Furthermore, our parliamentary democracy owes everything to the teachings of the New Testament and to the Christian interpretation of the value of the individual.
We also built a welfare state on the basis that we are each other's keepers and that we are members of a family. That also comes out of the New Testament. The children of today are the beneficiaries of a society created by people who held such values. Our democracy, our institutions and our freedom are dependent on Christian insights. Therefore, it goes beyond morality, but we can see how moral education has traditionally been associated with religious education. As all my hon. Friends know, there is no such thing as a value-free education. There is no such thing as neutral education. Even state schools are expected to transmit the religious and moral values that are accepted by the nation. Those values constitute the common possession of society. They are the basis of civilised life within our community.
I go further. As I indicated on 23 March, I believe in the right of parents to have their children educated in their faith. That means more than being taught about their

religion. It entails inculcation of a unified system of beliefs and values that shape behaviour and things great and small. That is my view.
I cannot see how the Lords amendments can possibly be regarded as evidence of a new move in the direction of Christian exclusivism. It is evidence, rather, of the seriousness with which many teachers of religious education now want to take a fresh look at the Judeo-Christian traditions that have contributed so richly to our western cultural heritage. It is evidence also of an increasing willingness to try to be clear about what Christianity is. It is evidence that most parents in this country want their children to be educated in the Christian tradition. The law grants them that right, and we are called upon tonight to see that it is observed honestly and efficiently. I therefore support the amendments.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief, because many hon. Members wish to speak. Let me add that no hon. Member who has spoken so far has not spoken with absolute honesty and conviction, whatever the views expressed.
I think that many people believe that the structure and the strength of this country have been built up on an Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Christian society and its beliefs, and are greatly concerned that moral and ethical standards have declined and are still declining. If that decline is to be stopped, I believe that it can be limited only by a stronger return to religious structure. If we are indeed a Christian country, we should have the faith to do everything in our power to encourage that to be taught to our young people in schools. Surely it is right that they should understand the ethical structure of Christianity and the moral obligations that form the basis of a civilised society, and those, I believe, are best taught through some form of religious education.
We are not attempting to suggest that Christianity should be universal; the amendments make specific allowances for members of other faiths to opt out of any of the Christian structures set out in them. Nevertheless, I do not believe that ethnic communities who come here to benefit from all that we have should expect their faith or social structure to change what has been the greatness of our own society—although that does not mean that we must stop them believing what they want to believe.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: I will not give way, because many hon. Members wish to speak.
The amendments spell that out. They urge that education should turn more to what I have been talking about than it has in the past. If, as has been suggested, there is a shortage of teachers, it is because we have not been urging that on the profession under the 1944 Act, as I believe Butler expected. The provision of the Act has been weakened. We need to strengthen it, and the amendments set out to do that. They will fulfil the wish of most parents, and for that reason they need the support of every hon. Member.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I think that I am the first non-believer to speak in the debate. This may be a good day for the Christians, but it is a bad day for the sense and sensibilities of the rest of us. It is extraordinary that a new religious settlement should have been reached in haste and in dark


corners between an unacceptable bishop and an unelectable peer. The result is impoverished, impractical and unprincipled amendments which ought to be assigned to the dustbin of ideology gone wrong.
We are being asked to enshrine in legislation unworkable and unrealisable pontifical nonsense which will cause chaos in our schools, dismay among pupils and divisions between all. Worse, I fear that we may inadvertently be introducing a charter for fundamentalists, bigots and zealots that will unleash forces of Byronic darkness in our schools. Perhaps I could tell the hon. Members a little more about Byronic darkness in a moment.
I do not want to be unkind, but I believe that our message to the Lords in general and the Bishop of London in particular can be summed up in the words of Coleridge, who said:
He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end by loving himself better than all.
Coleridge, I am sure, would have said that the amendments had been produced by a bad bishop and a bad peer. I cannot say that, because it is unparliamentary.
Let me make it clear that I am not attacking Christianity per se, and that I am not sure that I agree with either Frank Harris or Balfour in their famous discussion about religion. I am sure that all hon. Members who have read Margot Asquith's biography of Balfour will recall the conversation. Frank Harris said: "The fact is, Mr. Balfour, all the faults of the age come from Christianity and journalism", to which Balfour replied delphically: "Christianity, of course, Mr. Harris, but why journalism?"
In my view, for Parliament to assert the primacy of the Christian faith in the teaching in our schools is a morally, intellectually and metaphysically bankrupt exercise. For rabbis and imams to have to go to some standing council to ask for their own daily act of worship—even as other religions, and indeed secularism, are rising in this country while their own religion declines—shows the arrogance of the Christian establishment. It also shows how the religions fail daily to inspire the people who back them and who cannot manage without compulsory ritual. For Parliament to insist on the teaching of Christianity in what will inevitably be a crowded curriculum—putting it above learning that involves knowledge, understanding and awareness of the physical, mental and material world, and at the expense of science, logic, truth and the development of the imaginative faculties—shows just how easily in the modern world we can retreat inside ourselves, our guilt and our helplessness.
The idea that a school can preach racial harmony at the same time as allowing two or three segregrated acts of worship to take place daily seems so foolhardy that it could only come from people who hear voices from the other world. As I watched the Secretary of State introduce the amendments, I was reminded of Parson Richards, a character in one of Shelley's ballads. Like the Secretary of State, Parson Richards is suave, well heeled and well fed. His greatest love was feeding his hound. He had also sired a bastard son. The mother of the child takes up the story:
Priest, consider that God who created us
Meant this for a world of love—
Remember the story of Lazarus
You preach to the people of—…
And yet I cannot imagine how we
Can call him just and good,
When he sends a wretched woman like me
To a man like you for food.

Oh God! This poor dear child did I
At thy command bear and cherish—
Thou bads't us increase and multiply,
And our tyrants bid us perish!
I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the metaphor. Let me ask him a simple question: what shall it profit a mother if under the Education Reform Bill she understands all the gods and loses her own body and son?
If I were God—and, in the words of the negro spiritualist, if there has got to be a God, then why not me?—I would make sure that the Secretary of State expurgated his sins in the after life, and that his colleagues did the same, for all the suffering that they have caused in this life.
When the other place debated these clauses, three journalists rushed into Westminster Hall and said to me that they were perturbed because Members of the other place and of this House were not prepared to stand up to the unwarranted claims that the bishops were making for the young minds of pupils. My reply was that we should consider Churchill's famous statement that we are all Socialists now, but in the modern world we are all cowards now and only too ready to accept the tyranny of the religions. It is a sure sign that we live in a country whose culture is in irreversible decline.
6.30 pm
The public know that a fair number of Members of Parliament are charlatans. They know the depths of hypocrisy to which Members of Parliament are prepared to descend and that often we preach morals that we do not practise, but they have a right to expect that on important matters of principle hon. Members should speak to the truth of their understanding and feelings. The public have a right to expect hon. Members not to give way to zealots and fanatics who demand the potential to bring darkness, even nemesis, into our schools. Byron wrote:
I had a dream, which was not all a dream.
The bright sun was extinguish'd, and the stars
Did wander darkling in the eternal space,
Rayless, and pathless, and the icy earth
Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air;
Morn came, and went—and came, and brought no day,
And men forgot their passions in the dread
Of this their desolation; and all hearts
Were chill'd into a selfish prayer for light: …
And the clouds perished:
Darkness had no need of aid from them—
She was the universe.
We have no right to introduce darkness into our schools.

Mr. Cormack: Methinks that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) doth protest too much. One thing that he has certainly developed in an obviously most fascinating education is his imaginative faculty. I look forward to the anthology of verse that he will produce as a rejoinder to that recently produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I suspect, though, that it will be less positive in its progress and a little more destructive in its impact.
I strongly agree with two points made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I deplore the fact that we are debating this extremely important subject under a guillotine and I hope that every hon. Member will regard the vote as a free vote. I personally regard every vote as a free vote. I received my little document saying that my attendance was essential, and I am here, but tonight I shall have absolutely no hesitation in supporting my right hon.


Friend. What he said was just, right and fair and the alternations made to the Bill in another place were positive and sensible.
We have to recognise that the Education Act 1944 has not worked properly, and I speak as one who was a schoolmaster. In far too many schools the daily act of worship has been perfunctory, if it has been held at all. Far too often, non-believers have been given the job of inculcating religion. In the previous debate I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that I believe that, as far as possible, the teaching of religion should be restricted to those who believe in the religion that they are teaching. The law has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Now that we are looking for the first time for almost half a century at the content and direction of our education system it is right to consider what should be written into this Education Reform Bill. It is also right to recognise without arrogance and intolerance that we live in a society that has been moulded, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said in a brave and positive speech, by the Judeo-Christian civilisation. Many people never go near a church, but most of them recognise that inheritance. I will give just one example. In a village in my constituency, where I happened to be church warden, we had to raise a lot of money for the church. We were out one Sunday and found that some 85 per cent. of the inhabitants of the village gave something towards their church, for they recognised what it stood for, even though many of them rarely, if ever, darkened its doors.
The law cannot impose morality or a religious faith but it can recognise the bedrock of society. If we pass these amendments, that is all that we shall be doing.
I fully understand and sympathise with the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). One of the things that I am most pleased to have done in this House, together with him, is to found the all-party committee for the release of Soviet Jewry. We have worked together and we respect each other. I think we understand our respective points of view, but I am bound to say to him that I believe that the Chief Rabbi is right and that he is wrong. I can hardly be accused of great deviation from the joint cause that we espouse if I say that. The Chief Rabbi has recognised some great and profound truths. He has become one of the moral leaders of this nation, to whom we all look up, and I rejoice in his elevation to another place, of which he will be one of the most valuable Members and recognised as such in years to come.
Christianity should, above all, teach tolerance. The second of the great commandments exhorts us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Those who have come to this country to settle or who have been born in this country into another faith have nothing to fear from the amendment or from Christianity that is properly practised and properly taught. There will always be bigots, zealots, charlatans and rogues, but we have a duty to recognise one of the fundamental truths of our society: that we are the inheritors of a great tradition that has been moulded by a great religion. The amendment recognises that fact. It does no more. Those who do not espouse the Christian religion have nothing to fear from the amendments that I hope we shall pass this evening.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The real division in our society is not between Christians and non-Christians but between those who have faith and those who have not. The real division in our society is not between Hindus and Christians, Moslems and Christians and Sikhs and Christians but between those who need a place for the spirit. We should create in our schools a place for the spirit.
My fear about what lies implicity and explicitly behind the speeches of those hon. Members who support the Lords amendment is the suggestion that the balance of the Education Act 1944 has been removed because of demographic changes. That view is fundamentally false. The real changes that have altered the balance of the 1944 Act have nothing to do with race or demography but everything to do with the rising tide of secularism and materialism. We in this place should be seeking to carve out a place within the curriculum that recognises that fact.
The question is how best to do that. Do we do that by raising to a special position of prominence the faith to which I happen to adhere—the Christian religion—or do we recognise the real division that exists now between the faithless and the faithful, and say that we need to draw on the multiplicity of religious traditions that exists in our society? We should draw on the Hindu religion, the religion of the Sikhs and on Islam to enrich the spiritual body of our nation. Our challenge is to devise legislation to do just that.
I listened with a certain amount of trepidation to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that those who come new to this country have in some way to adapt to our "tradition." The reverse is true. We should recognise not simply the historical fact that when people from this country went to India they did not for one moment abandon Christianity; they took Christianity there. We should also recognise that we can draw on the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Moslems to enrich our spiritual pool. We should face that challenge, but I fear that the Lords amendments do not do that.
However, we are doing something that we may live to regret. The law will create a scenario in which people will be able to opt out of that spiritual pool. We shall lose the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Moslems and the contributions that they make, with us, as Christians, to carving out that place for the spirit that can be so attractive—we know and believe that it can be attractive because we are people of faith—to people who at the moment travail without faith, have nothing to cling to and, as a result, are exposed to the moral buffeting to which so many of our people are subjected.
Our choice is whether or not we enrich that spiritual pool. I hope that the House will make a choice for the spirit and reject the materialism, the secularism and, above all, the division that underlies the Lords amendments.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the Secretary of State have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Baker: I must say how much I agree with the initial comment of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I believe that it is very important to open up to children the spiritual dimension of life. Education is not


just about the mental and physical development of a child. Children going through the education process should be aware of the spiritual dimension. I say at once that it does not necessarily have to be Christian.
However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the amendments. The amendments seek, first, to ensure that religious education is re-established and taught. Many people feel that since 1944 it has weakened. They also strengthen the Christian background and the Christian tradition. My hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) have stressed how important that is to the framework of this country.
One cannot live in this country without being aware of that. That point was made very clearly in the comments of the Chief Rabbi in the other place. He was quoting another rabbi when he said:
'From schools that had confidence in their Christianity, I learnt an answering pride in my Jewishness; and I discovered that those who best appreciate other faiths are those who treasure their own.'"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 420.]
That spirit infuses through the amendments moved by the Bishop of London in the other place.
The amendments contain nothing intolerant. There is no imposition; there is scope for those who do not believe at all or who wish to believe in other faiths. We believe that there must be a bedrock in the basic teaching of Christianity in our schools, in both religious education and worship, because in that way our society is strengthened in a tolerant, humane and spiritual way.

Mr. Straw: The issue before the House this evening concerns tolerance. We have to remember that within the memory of all right hon. and hon. Members there have been periods of great intolerance, not only against Hindus, Moslems or those of no faith, but against the Catholics, the Methodists and the Non-conformists.
We do not dissent from much that has been said on both sides of the House about the aim. We object to the method and to the way in which we are being forced to vote on a block of amendments without discrimination. We object to the structure written into the Act—a structure we all know the Secretary of State opposed on 23 March. I believe that, in his heart, the Secretary of State opposes it still, as do other Ministers, as it is an unworkable and unacceptable structure.
I commend amendment (a) to the House. Then we shall be forced to vote against the whole block of amendments, although we support some of them.

It being a quarter to Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 362.

Division No. 417]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bidwell, Sydney


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Battle, John
Buchan, Norman


Beckett, Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Callaghan, Jim





Canavan, Dennis
McKelvey, William


Cartwright, John
McLeish, Henry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McTaggart, Bob


Clay, Bob
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martlew, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Michael, Alun


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Don
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliott


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Primarolo, Dawn


Flannery, Martin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Flynn, Paul
Radice, Giles


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, Martin


Foster, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Foulkes, George
Richardson, Jo


Fraser, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Galbraith, Sam
Robertson, George


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rogers, Allan


George, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Gordon, Mildred
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gould, Bryan
Ruddock, Joan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hinchliffe, David
Soley, Clive


Holland, Stuart
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Steinberg, Gerry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Turner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Janner, Greville
Wall, Pat


John, Brynmor
Walley, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wareing, Robert N.


Lambie, David
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Leighton, Ron
Wilson, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Loyden, Eddie



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mrs. Llin Golding.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert
Bendall, Vivian


Alton, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amos, Alan
Benyon, W.


Anderson, Donald
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton Kpto'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)






Bowis, John
Franks, Cecil


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, George


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodlad, Alastair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Buckley, George J.
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butcher, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gregory, Conal


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grocott, Bruce


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Christopher


Coleman, Donald
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Cran, James
Hind, Kenneth


Critchley, Julian
Holt, Richard


Cummings, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howard, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Curry, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irvine, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Janman, Tim


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Emery, Sir Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fallon, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fearn, Ronald
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamond, James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark





Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lightbown, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Tom


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maclean, David
Scott, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maples, John
Shersby, Michael


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marlow, Tony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Speed, Keith


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Miller, Sir Hal
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stokes, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Summerson, Hugo


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Paul
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pike, Peter L.
Wallace, James


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Michael
Walters, Sir Dennis


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Price, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Randall, Stuart
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wigley, Dafydd


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilkinson, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David






Winterton, Mrs Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodcock, Mike
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr Tristan Garel-Jones


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain whether we are voting just on Lords amendment No. 1, or on the whole block?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me clarify the position for the House. I have put the Question on Lords amendment No. 1. Once we have disposed of that, in accordance with the motion approved earlier by the House, I shall put the Question on all the outstanding Lords amendments in the group. For the sake of clarity, I will put the Question again.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put forthwith,

That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 108.

Division No. 418]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alton, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arbuthnot, James
Buck, Sir Antony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buckley, George J.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Chris


Atkinson, David
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coleman, Donald


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Conway, Derek


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowis, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Cope, Rt Hon John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Couchman, James





Cousins, Jim
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Critchley, Julian
Hill, James


Cummings, John
Hind, Kenneth


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holt, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hordern, Sir Peter


Curry, David
Howard, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dicks, Terry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Den
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Duffy, A. E. P.
Irvine, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Jack, Michael


Durant, Tony
Jackson, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Janman, Tim


Emery, Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fallon, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Farr, Sir John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Favell, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fearn, Ronald
Kennedy, Charles


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Key, Robert


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thlield)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Flynn, Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Forman, Nigel
Knowles, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, David


Forth, Eric
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lang, Ian


Franks, Cecil
Latham, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lawrence, Ivan


French, Douglas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fry, Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fyfe, Maria
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gale, Roger
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gardiner, George
Lightbown, David


Gill, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McAvoy, Thomas


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gow, Ian
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gregory, Conal
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Madel, David


Grist, Ian
Major, Rt Hon John


Grocott, Bruce
Malins, Humfrey


Ground, Patrick
Mans, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maples, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marlow, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hannam, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hardy, Peter
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mates, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Maude, Hon Francis


Harris, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hawkins, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hayes, Jerry
Meale, Alan


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Miller, Sir Hal


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mills, Iain


Heddle, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)






Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sims, Roger


Moate, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Speed, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Squire, Robin


Moss, Malcolm
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Steen, Anthony


Mudd, David
Stern, Michael


Murphy, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Neubert, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Parry, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thorne, Neil


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pike, Peter L.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Randall, Stuart
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Reid, Dr John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Renton, Tim
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Wallace, James


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walters, Sir Dennis


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Warren, Kenneth


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, John


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowlands, Ted
Wiggin, Jerry


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryder, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Woodcock, Mike


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.




NOES


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cartwright, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boateng, Paul
Clay, Bob





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Martlew, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dalyell, Tam
Morgan, Rhodri


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morley, Elliott


Dewar, Donald
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Don
Nellist, Dave


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Redmond, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Richardson, Jo


Fisher, Mark
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Geoffrey


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Foulkes, George
Rooker, Jeff


Fraser, John
Ruddock, Joan


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Soley, Clive


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Steinberg, Gerry


Hinchliffe, David
Strang, Gavin


Holland, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wall, Pat


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Walley, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Janner, Greville
Wareing, Robert N.


John, Brynmor
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lambie, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Leighton, Ron
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litherland, Robert



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Martin Flannery.


Madden, Max

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 8 to 16, 147 to 186, 227, 476, 480 and 557 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the vote related not to Lords amendment No. 1 but to at least two major issues and more than 14 amendments, which were grouped in one Question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to judge the importance of the matter which the House has just decided. If the hon. Member is in any doubt, perhaps I should explain that the House has just voted on Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 inclusive, 8 to 16 inclusive, 147 to 186 inclusive, 227, 476, 480 and 557.I hope that that helps the hon. Member.

Clause 4

DUTY TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM BY ORDER

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 3, line 46, leave out subsection (4).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 18, in clause 10, page 7, line 46, leave out from "apply" to end of line 47 and insert
; or
(b) shall apply with such modifications as may be so specified;
in such cases or circumstances as may be so specified.
Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add
'and regulations made under this section shall in particular ensure that where the National Curriculum does not apply to a registered pupil or is applied with modifications in cases and circumstances specified in the regulations, the head teacher shall inform in writing the parent of the pupil of the effect of the regulations and of the parent's rights under section 21'.
Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add—
`( ) Regulations made under this section shall in particular provide that where the National Curriculum does not apply to a registered pupil, or applies with modifications in cases and circumstances specified in the regulations, the parent of the pupil shall be informed in writing by the head teacher of the effect of the regulations, of the provision that it is propose will be made for the pupil, and of his right to appeal to the governing body if he does not agree with the application of the regulations to the pupil, or with the provision it is proposed to make for the pupil.
( ) On any such appeal the governing body may—
(a) confirm the head teacher's action; or
(b) direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances;
and it shall be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any directions of the governing body under paragraph (b) above.'. 
Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 25.
Lords amendment No. 54, in clause 30, page 27, line 3, at end insert
(including, in particular, the number of registered pupils at a school who have special educational needs and the nature of the special educational provision required to be made for them).
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out 'and'.
Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, after 'them', insert
'having regard to the capacity of the local education authority to provide central services, including the schools psychological service, which may be relevant to such provision.'.
Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, after 'them', insert
'and the numbers and grading of staff required to produce that level of provision'.
Lords amendments Nos. 68, 187, 188.
Lords amendment No. 272, in clause 104, page 103, line 3, at end insert—
(8A) In fulfilling that duty a local education authority shall also have regard to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have learning difficulties.
(8B) Subject to subsection (8C) below, for the purposes of subsection (8A) above a person has a "learning difficulty" if—
(a) he has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons of his age; or
(b) he has a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by the local education authority concerned in pursuance of their duty under subsection (1) above for persons of his age.

(8C) A person is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the language (or form of language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home.
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out 'also have regard to' and insert
'make adequate provision to meet'.
Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out 'have regard to' and insert
'secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities suited to'.
Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, after 'age', insert
up to and including the age of 19'.
Amendment (d) to the Lords amendment, in line 4. at end insert 'or special needs'
Lords amendments Nos. 275, 278 and 537.
Lords amendment No. 538, in page 211, line 42, at end insert—
'74B. In section 8(1) of the 1981 Act (appeals against statements) for the words from "following" to the end there shall be substituted the words ''against the special educational provision specified in the statement—
(a) following the first or any subsequent assessment of the child's special educational needs under section 5; and
(b) where the authority make any amendment to the special educational provision specified in the statement otherwise than on the making of any such assessment."'
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end of subparagraph (a) leave out 'and'.
Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment at end insert
'and
(c) where the authority cease to maintain a statement for a child for whom they are responsible.'.
Lords amendment No. 539.

Mr. Dunn: A striking feature of the passage of the Bill has been the concern shown for pupils with special needs not merely by Members in both Houses but by Members on both sides of each House. I am glad to observe that the welfare of children with special needs is one subject that can be guaranteed to transcend party divisions and to unite both sides of the House. I am glad to see the many familiar faces of hon. Members who touched on this subject in Committee. Life would not be the same without the lugubrious features of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Much of what we did was the result of the agreements and concerns of both sides of the Committee, and the Government gave a lead on occasions, although we were not always given credit for what was done.
That was also the case when we dealt with the application of the national curriculum provisions. Hon. Members, especially those who served on the Committee, will know that it has been our wish and intention from the beginning that the benefits from the introduction of the national curriculum should extend to pupils with special needs. That is why the provisions of chapter I of the Bill apply to special schools maintained by local education authorities. We realised, however, that there would need to be some flexibility in implementing the national curriculum pupils with special needs.
7.15 pm
In the consultative document which preceded the Bill, it was proposed that there should be provision for statements of special educational need to specify any requirements of the national curriculum which should not


apply to individual pupils. That provision became clause 11. There was a need for a similar provision for pupils who were not the subject of statements; so clause 4 allowed the Secretary of State, in making orders about the foundation subjects, to specify modifications in respect of particular categories of pupil.
That word "categories" brought back memories of pre-1981 Act language, and we were criticised for it. It was also said that some parts of the national curriculum would be so inappropriate for the most severely affected children that what was needed was not modification, but exemption. It was also pointed out that the provisions we had made were aimed at pupils with permanent or long-term difficulties, and would be slow to bring to bear. There was sometimes a need for a school to be able to act quickly to meet a temporary change of circumstances.
I listened to these criticisms and, as I am not just a "listening Minister", we made some changes. We introduced clause 10 to deal with pupils without statements; we amended clause 11 to allow for exemptions from the national curriculum; and we introduced clause 12 to give head teachers powers to deal with temporary situations. The use of those powers will be subject to safeguards for the rights of the pupils and their parents.
The amendments made in another place build on our provisions and tidy them up. It became clear that the provisions in clauses 4 and 10 had much in common. Amendments Nos. 7 and 18 combine them. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are drafting amendments to clause 11. Amendment No. 23 acknowledges the fact that a pupil whose statement of special educational needs already specifies a modification to the national curriculum may need a further, temporary, change while those needs are being reassessed—perhaps because of a change of circumstances. Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 25 are consequential amendments.
Amendment No. 538 extends the parents' right of appeal under the Education Act 1981 to cover the case where a statement is being amended without a complete reassessment, as may be needed to write in modifications to the national curriculum. Amendment No. 539 requires the LEA to inform the parents of their right of appeal in such cases.
Amendment No. 537 is slightly different. It enables local education authorities to provide for any non-educational provision which is specified in a child's statement of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981. As the House knows from experience of the legislation, the responsibility falls on the appropriate statutory agencies.
The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this subject and we understand and recognise the uncertainty felt in many quarters about the provision of speech therapy following the Oxfordshire judgment in 1986. The fact that three separate attempts were made in the other place to secure an amendment on this matter is a tribute to the tenacity of their Lordships and an expression of their concern—and concern was expressed in this House as well. In that event, I am glad to say that it was third time lucky and the Government are happy to commend the amendment to the House.
Lords amendment No. 54—which has an air of familiarity for my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others—is concerned with special needs in schemes of financial delegation. Concern has rightly been expressed that facilities for pupils with special educational needs should be safeguarded under schemes of financial delegation.
As we have made clear both in this House and in the other place, the Government fully share that aim. The draft guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes it clear that local education authorities will be expected to take account of special needs in their formula for allocating resources between schools. Nor is this merely advisory. Clause 26(2) requires the local education authority to take account of the guidance in preparing its scheme, and my right hon. Friend will not approve any scheme that fails to do so. In addition, provision may be safeguarded by local education authorities excepting from delegation a number of key areas, such as the school psychological and welfare services, and provision for pupils with statements of special needs.
None the less, the Government recognise the force of the argument that there should be an explicit recognition of the position of special needs on the face of the Bill. Lords amendment No. 54 provides this by specifying special needs as a factor that may be taken into account in the resource allocation formula. Together with the clear requirement set out in the draft guidance, the amendment will ensure that local education authorities provide through their formula for variations in numbers and for the provision required for pupils with special needs. I hope that the House will welcome that as a further and explicit statement of the Government's aims.
The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 68 is designed to ensure that local education authorities have the flexibility, where they wish, to include special schools as part of their schemes. The existing clause 35 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to require delegation to special schools by regulations. But, as my right hon. Friend has made clear in his draft guidance, he does not intend to make such regulations until there is more experience of voluntary delegation by local education authorities. It is therefore desirable that local education authorities should have the freedom, where they consider it appropriate, to extend delegation to special schools voluntarily.
The provisions will allow individual special schools to be treated differently, in recognition of their widely different needs and characteristics. It would be open to local education authorities under the regulations to decide which individual special schools, if any, should be included in the scheme. The regulations would also serve to disapply requirements of this part of the Bill that would not be appropriate for special schools. In particular, we envisage that the application of the resource allocation formula will need to be different for special schools to take account of the specific nature of their needs.
These provisions are permissive. Regulations made under them will be made only after more experience of delegation and extensive consultation. I hope that the House will support the aim of providing more flexibility, and accept and endorse the amendments.
Lords amendment No. 187 requires the governors of a grant-maintained school who have published proposals under clause 77 for a change of character to the school or


enlargement of its premises to submit to the Secretary of State information on the extent to which the proposed premises would meet the minimum requirements of design note 18 on access to educational buildings for physically disabled people. The amendment will signal to governors the kind of detailed information that they will be expected to provide in such circumstances. It affords further reassurance and additional security for all those with special needs who will be users of grant-maintained schools. On those grounds, I commend the amendment to the House.
Lords amendments Nos. 272, 275 and 278 deal with further and higher education. We recognise the need for special provision to be available for students with learning difficulties after they have left school. The revised version of section 41 of the Education Act 1944, which will be inserted by this Bill, gives local education authorities a duty to secure the provision of further education generally for their areas. This includes a duty to secure provision for students with special needs. Lords amendment No. 272 puts it beyond doubt that local education authorities must have regard to the requirements of such students. It defines these students by references to "learning difficulties", words that parallel those of the 1981 Act. Lords amendments Nos. 275 and 278 empower the higher education corporations to provide facilities for disabled students.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: This is a happy occasion in many respects as the Opposition agree with the Government and with the Lords amendments. It has been good to see the progress that the Government have made in relation to special educational needs. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in the subject will recall that just a year ago, in the document "The National Curriculum—5 to 16", only one paragraph was devoted to this important subject. If ever there was an argument in favour of the Standing Committee's proceedings, it is the progress that we have made on special educational needs.
The Minister was right to say that concern was expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. No one can claim a monopoly of wisdom or concern on this subject.

Mr. James Pawsey: We should not forget the Lords.

Mr. Fatchett: I was about to praise the other place in this context as their Lordships certainly took a keen and effective interest in the matter. In Committee a key figure in our deliberations was my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) whose experience as the head of a special school enabled us to understand many special educational needs. He must take much of the credit for the progress that has been made, although that is not to detract from the contributions of others.
I am delighted that there has been a substantial shift from the initial view taken by the Government in the national curriculum document. The Minister knows that at that stage the Government were subject to severe criticism from all sorts of organisations, whose representatives said, "Hold on a minute. What about those youngsters with special educational needs? Let us draft the legislation to take account of those needs." To give him

credit, as early as 17 December last, in Committee, the Minister said about provision for children's special educational needs:
There may be other aspects that the Committee has not discussed. If hon. Members are disposed to comment on them to me I shall consider them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 17 December 1987; c. 248.]
We did that and we are delighted that the Minister has proved himself to be not only, in his own words "a listening Minister" but, on this occasion, an acting Minister. This must be unique because it is rare that the Government listen and, if they do listen and hear, it is rare that they act on what they hear, so the Minister has achieved a great deal more than many of his colleagues and we welcome that. We also welcome the explanation that has been given for the amendments passed in the other place, and we shall support those amendments. Therefore, it would be foolish of me to waste the time of the House going through those amendments. However, I shall raise with the Minister certain issues about children with special educational needs that I hope that he will comment on as they are issues that are still important in this debate.
7.30 pm
I welcome what happened in the other place and the way in which the Bill has changed. However, does the Minister still feel that there is sufficient flexibility for statemented youngsters? The Association of County Councils recently made the point that it is difficult to see how regulations can provide for all the different circumstances of children with special educational needs. It has told Ministers that there is a need for even greater flexibility. Would it be possible, if not through this legislation then through an order, to have some instruction or practice note from the Ministry so that schools can be more flexible about statemented children?
My second question is about non-statemented youngsters who are low achievers and who have special educational needs that relate to specific conditions or criteria but not across the board. There is a real concern about that group of low achieving youngsters, who will be above and beyond statemented children but who may nevertheless experience difficulties with the Government's notion of national curriculum attainment targets and all that goes with that. Those difficulties could make their role in the classroom awkward. The Warnock commit tee concept was that there was a need for a continuum on special educational needs and it related that continuum to roughly 20 per cent. of the school age population. Could the Government say whether it might be possible, not at this stage but in some other way, to recognise the needs of non-statemented youngsters who will fall into that Warnock 20 per cent., because those youngsters are important to us?
I have a third question. I apologise to the Minister if I seem to be setting him a test, but these are issues on which the House would be interested to hear the Government's response. The Secretary of State said on Report that the National Curriculum Council may want to establish a sub-committee to deal with special educational needs. There is a great deal of merit in that argument and I would be interested to hear what progress has been made on that.
Fourthly, I am concerned about youngsters in the post-16 age provision. Again, we note what the Minister has said and we welcome that because it has always seemed to me that there is a real danger that youngsters, having reached the age of 16, may simply fall off the edge in


education and training terms if they have special educational needs. There is a black hole—a vacuum—into which these youngsters disappear. We welcome Lords amendment No. 272, because, as the Minister rightly said, it places on local education authorities a duty and a responsibility towards those youngsters. There may be a need for extra resources to back up that duty so that the right training and education are provided. There may also be a need for much greater guidance and a better learning process between authorities so that we can see the good work that is going on, post-16, for youngsters with special educational needs, and can build on that good work.
The Minister, in speaking about Lords amendment No. 54, spoke about the definition of local financial management. I hope that he will recognise that now special needs will be incorporated into the formula for local financial management for schools. Is there any possibility of including reference to special educational needs in the local financial management formula for further education colleges? If that is not included, there is the difficulty that the words incorporated in Lords amendment No. 262 will not necessarily be implemented simply because there may not be the financial resources or the space to do so.
The House would like to hear the Minister's comments on those issues. They are part of the process that developed in Committee and through the proceedings on the Bill to advance the opportunities of youngsters with special educational needs.
Amendment No. 537 deals primarily with speech therapy. If the other place achieved a success, it was in this amendment. It is a success also for all those organisations that represent speech therapists and all those parents who have been arguing for this important change in the law. I wrote to the Secretary of State on this issue earlier this year and received the normal courteous reply from the Under-Secretary, who explained to me the bureaucratic difficulties in the provision of speech therapy. It is the responsibility not of the local education authority but of the local health authority to provide speech therapy. Unfortunately, that created a bureaucratic vacuum, or, as the Minister described it to me in an off-the-record conversation with me, a lacuna, into which these youngsters fell, with the result that their needs were not satisfied.
The Minister has moved from the explanation of the bureaucratic position that he sent me in a letter and from the comments that he made in Committee on 12 January, when he said:
No plans are afoot to make the changes".—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 12 January 1988; c. 398.]
Such is the power of the Under-Secretary that, while he was saying those very words, I have no doubt that he was planning these changes. He was not trying to resist—his words were carefully selected. We knew that the Minister, with his deep sympathy for all children in these circumstances, was planning vigorously in Elizabeth house the process that led to Lords amendment No. 537 and an effective conclusion to a difficult problem. We welcome this amendment, which is particularly important for those youngsters who need speech therapy. The Government's acceptance of the amendment will be welcomed by parents, who have fought hard on behalf of their children and other children, and by organisations representing speech therapists and others involved in this problem.
The House has made substantial progress in the Bill to help youngsters with special educational needs. As part of the rhetoric of education debates we often talk about providing greater opportunity for youngsters. There is no greater or more poignant example of youngsters who need opportunity than those to whom these amendments relate. If we talk simply about the 10 per cent. or the 40 per cent. or the 30 per cent., we do many children, our education system and our country a disservice.
In Committee and in the other place, we have succeeded in ensuring that the Government recognise the needs of the bottom 5 or 10 per cent., although I do not like the words "the bottom 5 or 10 per cent.". We have recognised the needs of all our children, including those with particular problems. That helps to extend opportunity, but more needs to be done. We shall continue to press for more, but we are grateful for what has been achieved so far.

Mr. John Bowis: The tone of the opening speeches in this short debate sums up the spirit throughout the Bill on this subject. Tribute has been paid to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and to other hon. Members for taking forward the provisions step by step towards a better future for children with special needs and for their families.
The Committee brought together a number of people who had had experience in one way or another, through teaching, family life or knowledge of that occasion when the family suddenly finds itself with a new arrival who is handicapped in some way and will grow up with special needs, or faces a horrific accident or illness later in life which results in the child developing such special needs, or faces the learning difficulties that may emerge at various stages in life. We have an understanding of those needs and a common desire and determination to ensure that the Bill does its best by those children and their families.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the opportunities in educational life. The Bill is very much a Bill of opportunities. It says to parents throughout the country, "Let your children grow tall", but we know that, all too often, some children cannot grow tall on their own, for physical or mental reasons. Sometimes they are able to grow if adaptations are made to their learning establishment, if proper teaching facilities are provided and targeted on the children or if the families are given the necessary support.
Children with special needs can achieve and many of them can compete. We should never suggest that they are at the bottom of the pile or that they are different from other children. Their opportunities may be different, but they are children nevertheless and we need to consider every child within its own lights and see what it can achieve. We are doing that by accepting the Lords amendments and we welcome the Government's amendments and their attitude to the Lords amendments.
Many children can cope with integration into maintained schools, but others cannot be integrated. We want both categories of children to be looked after diligently. As a Member who represents an inner London constituency, I hope that the Government will pay special attention to those needs as the transfer of education to the boroughs take place. The boroughs are determined that they will do their best for the education of special needs children, but a watching brief from the Department is crucial and confirmation of that would be doubly welcome.
Hon. Members have a special responsibility for those children who need special help. When the Bill started its passage, we thought that the families and children perhaps felt left out. The Bill did not often refer to them and all hon. Members have pressed to ensure that it was made clear that special needs children are in the mainstream so far as the Bill and the Government's intentions are concerned. It is not the Government's intention to leave out such children and families, but it is important that their inclusion in the Bill is spelt out.
7.45 pm
All too often, where there was reference, the Bill referred to the exclusion rather than the inclusion of special needs children. Although exclusion is right in certain matters, I was interested to see that one of the amendments sought to ensure that those children who are excluded have rights of appeal to ensure that their cases are considered. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that because we must monitor progress when the Bill is enacted. We shall want to ensure that those rights and interests are safeguarded.
My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to refer to one of my amendments which has been incorporated in another amendment. Other amendments have also been incorporated, including that of the hon. Member for City of Durham, although I do not wish to argue the paternity of any amendment. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to financial delegation and the need to ensure that local authorities have a responsibility to produce their plans for children with special needs and to state the number of children involved.
Amendment No. 54 is a step in the right direction. I might quibble that their Lordships saw fit to table the amendment to subsection 3(b) as opposed to subsection 3(a). We debated in Committee whether the word "shall" should replace the word "may". Their Lordships could have used either, but they appear to have opted for the word "may". I accept that with gratitude and we may one day make the obligation statutory, if it is thought to be necessary.
In London, we have a particular interest to ensure that each individual is looked after. The amendments and the Bill encourage cases to be considered individually. There is a great debate within the special needs community in London between those who wish to see greater integration and those who fear it. Both have a fair case. It is crucial that, where appropriate and where the parents want it, a child should be integrated into a mainstream school and, where necessary, the school should be adapted to welcome the child. Equally, however, many parents are concerned about whether the child could cope with that environment. We must provide the special schools to enable that child to develop and compete within its own lights.
I welcome the Government's proposals and the Opposition's welcome of them. These small steps underline the fact that those children are precious to the House and the fact that their opportunities to achieve and compete within their own capabilities are important to all hon. Members. We have often said during the passage of the Bill that such children will not be forgotten. This is the evidence that they have not been forgotten and I look forward to the implementation of these measures for the benefit of all children in this country, whatever their special needs may be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this is a short debate and speeches should be short.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The difference between the Bill as it stands and as originally drafted is remarkable, especially in its treatment of children with special educational needs. The original Bill virtually ignored such children and mentioned only those subject to statements. It was as though 18 per cent. of the school population did not exist or had been forgotten. The Government had not taken into account the fact that 20 per cent. of the school population have special needs at some stage in their school life, although only 2 per cent. are subject to statements. In many cases, the 18 per cent. of children who were ignored were worse off than the 2 per cent. who were subject to statements.
All children with special educational needs need individual work schemes designed to meet their particular needs. To force the 18 per cent. who are not statemented rigidly to follow the national curriculum is plainly stupid. Anyone who has had any dealings with such children knows that they need individual tuition geared to their particular strengths and weaknesses. It was clear that whoever originally drafted the Bill had no experience of children with special educational needs.
Thanks to concentrated and successful debate and powerful arguments, Labour Members put great pressure on the Government to amend the Bill. I admit that we had some help from other quarters, but basically we shall take credit for the changes. I believe that we have forced the Government to see their own folly and the mistakes that they had made and eventually to concede that specific provision should be made for the 18 per cent. of the school population whom they had ignored. The Lords have attempted to make that provision and we fully support their efforts.
In particular, I am delighted to support Lords amendment No. 537, which seeks to amend the Education Act 1981. Many children are identified and statemented as being in need of speech therapy. That takes place in the educational setting—it is important to note that—but at present the therapy can be provided only by the health authority, so the education authority is entirely at the mercy of the health authority. Many children do not receive the necessary therapy and at present education authorities cannot provide it independently. It is nonsense for a statement to say that the child needs speech therapy but for the education authority to have no power in law to provide that service. The amendment would ensure that local education authorities could make such provision, possibly by buying it in from health authorities.
I should like to go further and allow education authorities to employ speech therapists. As a head teacher, I saw the desperate problems of children who needed speech therapy but did not receive it because the health authority could not deliver the goods. I wrote to the Minister recently about that, but his reply was downright unhelpful. I am therefore delighted to support the amendment and I hope that. the Minister will be more sympathetic in future.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). He knows that I deeply admire him. He has personally campaigned for this change and I am sure that his efforts had a huge bearing on the success


that has been achieved. It is a magnificent achievement, but no more than one would expect from so talented a Member.
Children with special educational needs must have access to the best school environment and must receive full consideration in that respect, regardless of their disability. That is why I support Lords amendments Nos. 187 and 188. A child in a wheelchair has the same rights as an able-bodied child and must be able to attend the school of his choice. Schools must not be allowed to turn children away on such grounds. Nevertheless, I have seen it happen and I hope that the Minister will today give a guarantee that it will not happen in the future. It is even more important for a child with special needs to have more choice in education. Such children must not be denied acceptance because of their handicaps. There will be great pressure on schools to fill their places without accepting children with special needs and that will reduce the choice available to the parents of such children. The result will therefore be the opposite of the greater choice that the Government advocate.
With regard to financial delegation, children with special needs are again under threat. That is why I support Lords amendment No. 54 and the amendments proposed to it. When a mainstream school controls its own budget there will be untold pressure on it to allocate the vast majority of its finance in favour of academic children, and provision for those with special needs may be neglected. Such provision is already not too brilliant in some schools and the situation could worsen if the amendments are not accepted. Lords amendment No. 54, as proposed to be amended, would go a long way towards securing financial support for children with special educational needs.
Another point of great importance arises out of the draft consultative document, "The Education Reform Act: Financial Delegation to Schools". Educational psychologists are not covered by the mandatory services provided by local education authorities. In other words, the service could be delegated to the individual school's budget. That could have calamitous effects for children with special needs. Educational psychologists are an integral part of the team working with such children. The service would take a minute proportion of an education authority's budget but a huge proportion of an individual school's budget. If the service is delegated, there will be chaos in special needs provision. Special schools, in particular, will simply not be able to cope and their budgets will be drained if they have to pay for that service.

Mr. Dunn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the draft guidance on financial delegation emphasises that, in addition, provision may be safeguarded by education authorities excepting from delegation a number of key areas such as the schools' psychological and welfare services and provision for children with special needs. Does not that meet the point?

Mr. Steinberg: It depends whether it is mandatory or discretionary. If it is mandatory and education authorities do not have discretion to delegate but are obliged to provide the service, I retract what I have said. If it is discretionary, however, some authorities—I would describe them as unscrupulous authorities—could pass the responsibility on to the schools, resulting in the problems

that I have mentioned. If it is discretionary, therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and to make it mandatory on local education authorities to provide that service. As the Minister has said, inspectors and advisers will be centrally provided. The educational psychology service should be centrally provided as well.
In support of the amendments to Lords amendment No. 272, it must be said that the provision made for pupils with special educational needs after the age of 16 is appalling. There is virtually nothing organised specifically for these youngsters. Parents are rightly demanding that their children should be able to continue in full-time education up to the age of 19 and that relevant courses should be organised for them. Before local education authorities can provide this extension they must be allocated the resources.
Staying on at school creates problems because no funds are allocated for that purpose. Some children go to adult training centres run by the social services, but those centres tend to offer places only to 19-year-olds and younger people find that the courses are filled up. Many handicapped people end up staying at home and doing nothing. That has to stop. Ten years ago we hardly saw a pupil with special educational needs staying on at school after the age of 16, but now many of them stay on until the age of 19. However, the training and education that they receive from the age of 16 to 19 is a waste of time because local education authorities cannot afford to fund relevant courses.
If it was a statutory requirement for pupils to receive education up to the age of 19, local education authorities would have to plan and organise fully-funded courses. That is why our amendments should be supported. I say again that, if it had not been for Labour Members, children with special educational needs would have been ignored. If the amendments are not accepted the Bill will be a recipe for disaster. To everything that the Government are offering we say, "Better late than never", or, "We told you so months ago."

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not take much time, although the short time allowed to debate this issue and the fact that my party was excluded from the debate on the guillotine illustrate how fast the Bill is being pushed through. I regret that.
I am afraid that this group of amendments shows the House how little, in drafting the Bill, the Government thought about children with special needs. The Minister was rather overgenerous in crediting himself and the Government with the changes that have been put forward. The first draft of the Bill contained 147 clauses but had only four lines about special education needs. I welcome these amendments because they make modest, sensible changes and are a great improvement on the original rather shoddy drafting of the Bill.
We should not forget that the changes to the Bill came about as a result not of the Minister's deliberations but of lobbying, forceful argument and votes against the Government by all Opposition parties and by many Conservative Members. We should not ignore that because it is to be welcomed. It is regrettable that, initially, Ministers did not give as much thought to the matter as many hon. Members have given to it since.
In addressing the amendments I shall confine myself to three points. First, Lords amendment No. 80 is silent about how cases and circumstances will be specified. If, as


we wish, the permitted scope of the clause successfully addresses the varying needs of gifted children and those with learning difficulties, there will need to be sensitive professional judgments about whether and when a child could benefit from the clause. The Minister has just left the Chamber. Perhaps if he responds to that point he will elaborate on whether that will be the case.
Secondly, Lords amendment No. 272 deals with provision within further education, about which we have heard a great deal that I support. It is sad that we will not have a chance to vote either on amendment (b) tabled by my hon. Friends and I or on the similar amendment (a) to Lord's amendment No. 272 tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), which would make it a duty to provide adequately for people with special education needs after their school years. Many hon. Members have made that point.
My authority in Cornwall has a policy of continuing support for special education needs in further education colleges. Because of pressure on resources to meet statutory duties first, that policy is not easy to implement. Cornwall county council has only today had to take a decision to use contingency funds to continue FE courses for young adults with moderate learning difficulties. The Lords amendments to the Bill will not help Cornwall immediately, because what we really need is more resources. We will get them only if there is a statutory duty.
I shall now turn to Lords amendment No. 537 and speech therapy. The Government are not fully meeting the needs of children because they fear the cost of doing so. Neither health authorities nor local education authorities can afford to provide as much speech therapy as is needed. We and other hon. Members certainly welcome Lords amendment No. 537, but it does not solve that important problem because it will press local education authorities to do more for children but will not give those authorities an extra penny.
The problem of speech therapy directly affects some of my constituents. For example, a speech therapist in St. Austell has gone on maternity leave, but there is no cash available to cover for her while she is away. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment on those points, and that the Government recognise and will meet the financial consequences of the amendments that they have accepted rather than simply put the burden on local authorities by giving them permission to spend but not the means to follow through.

Mr. Flannery: I shall he brief and address my remarks to one point. The Bill will wreak havoc on our education system. It will fling into great difficulty practically everybody connected with education, including parents and children. However, it would be churlish of me not to say that there are some good things peering out of the Bill. I shall address myself to one of those things because, inadequate though it is, Lords amendment No. 272 is still an advance.
The amendments did not just appear. We have all paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who was head of a special school. He taught us all a great deal, and Conservative Members learnt a great deal from him. The Warnock report was followed by the 1981 Act, and then a tremendous piece of research had to be curtailed because of the general election. It was carried out by the Select Committee on

Education, Science and Arts, some of whose members went to other countries to look at special education needs. The impact that we had on Conservative Members is the product of many things, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, they have not quite noticed that impact.
All over the country there is now a demand for work with children with special needs. That is not only because such children did not receive proper provision, but because many people have now had their consciences seized by this idea. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham says that all these things depend on money. Of course they do. When they are left to a local education authority, which is probably rate-capped and is having great difficulty imposed on it by the Government and when things are discretionary instead of mandatory, there is always great difficulty, especially in the case of people who are often at the end of the queue, as is the case with children with special needs.
Lords amendment No. 272 says:
A person is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home.
We know that in ILEA many West Indian children are stigmatised even though much wonderful work has been done for such children. That is because they were not grasping what they were being taught. That was not their fault. That was due to our not realising that they could not keep pace because they did not know the language properly. Prior to that, there were other difficulties. Between the ages of 16 and 19 years, there was little or nothing for these children. There will be something for them now, and we want the provision to be increased and intensified.
A fortnight ago I received a letter from a working-class couple on hard times with a daughter of 19 years who is inadequate but who can learn. Irrespective of whether there are special needs, the learning process goes on, and it is for us to ensure that it does. Sadly, education is halted at 19. I wrote to the Minister, the parents of the 19-year-old girl and the local education authority saying that the work that is being put in hand should be extended to include children—to an extent they are children—of 19 years who have difficulties. We have learnt something together, and featured in the amendments are good things that could be made better and that will stare out of what, in my opinion, is an appalling Bill.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The consideration of the Bill in Committee was exceptional in two regards, if not more. First, there was the quality of many of the debates. Perhaps some of the debates on special needs were among the most fluent and cogently argued. That fluency of argument was matched by the extraordinary openness with which the Government Front Bench team approached the issue, as with so many others that arose in Committee. There was an unprecedented willingness to respond to well-argued cases that were put before them.
It became clear on statementing and on many other matters that we shall be discussing that within the relevant clauses there were issues which were implied and understood by the Government, and which would be shown to be by the way in which the Bill, when enacted, would be interpreted. When we came to examine specific clauses, however, it was fell that greater clarity and


certainty would be needed. That was true especially of our debates on special needs. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) brought great knowledge and expertise to the Committee—I am not sure how fluent he was in his praise of members of the Opposition Front Bench—as a result of his experience in dealing with special need.

Mr. Steinberg: I hope that Conservative Members will stop praising me. I shall be deselected if I receive much more praise from them.

Mr. Batiste: Far be it from me to embarrass the hon. Gentleman.
There are two regards in which the case for amendment was made most strongly. First, it was said that a budget should be applied to individual schools to take account of the number of children with special needs within them. Secondly, there was the application of the curriculum to statemented children. The Government have responded fully to the proper and legitimate concerns that were raised. On behalf of Conservative Back-Bench Members who were Committee members, I warmly welcome the Government's response.

Mr. Dunn: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I hope that I will not cause him to be deselected if I say that he is a super, all-round decent nice guy.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) raised legitimate concerns about non-statemented pupils. Clause 10 provides for regulations on foundation subjects. It provides for modifications and exemptions in specified cases and circumstances. We shall be looking to the subject working groups and the National Curriculum Council to advise us on the way in which that provision can be applied to non-statemented pupils.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central talked about a sub-committee of the NCC. I am pleased to say that the shadow NCC is meeting for the first time today. It is a little too soon to speculate upon and about the decisions that it might take on the sub-committee structure. I note the hon. Gentleman's argument and I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of those who matter.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central asked whether there was sufficient flexibility for pupils with statements. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and advise him that clause 11 provides for a statement to specify modification or exemption for the individual pupil. This allows great flexibility in applying the national curriculum.
Lords amendment No. 23 amends clause 12—

It being a quarter past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 25, 54, 68, 187 and 188 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 272 agreed to. [Special Entry]

Lords amendments Nos. 275, 278 and 537 to 539 agreed to.

Mr. Steinberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of questions were unanswered because of the time constraint. Will the Minister be kind enough to reply to the questions in writing?

Mr. Dunn: Of course I shall.

Clause 5

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 11, line 31, leave out
and the results of their assessments under this Chapter
and insert
(including the results of any assessments of those pupils, whether under this Chapter or otherwise, for the purpose of ascertaining those achievements).

Read a Second time.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, leave out 'including' and insert
`together with a statement by the local education authority as to the social composition of the school and its area, and a statement by the governing body as to matters it considers relevant to those achievements and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 28 in page 12, line 2, leave out "under this Chapter" and insert
(whether under this Chapter or otherwise)

Mrs. Clwyd: Instead of standing at the Dispatch Box moving the amendment I should have been cheering on the House of Commons side in the tug of war, but fate has decreed otherwise.
The purpose of the amendment is to insert into the Bill the one major and outstanding recommendation of the task group on assessment and testing report which has still not been accepted by the Government. It deals with the publication of reports on the social position of the school by the local education authority and the governors at the same time as the publication of test results. The original consultation document on the national curriculum stated that national assessment would enable LEAs to be better placed to test the strengths and weaknesses of their schools
taking due account of relevant socio-economic factors.
That would include cultural differences.
The thirtieth recommendation of the TGAT report states:
the only form in which results of national assessment for, and identifying, a given school should be published should be as part of a broader report by that school of its work as a whole.
Recommendation No. 31 stated:
Any report by a school which includes national assessment results should include a general report for the area, prepared by the local authority, to indicate the nature of socio-economic and other influences which are known to affect schools. This report should give a general indication of the known effects of such influences on performance.
The Government have repeatedly given assurances that they do not wish to create local league tables of schools resulting from the publication of raw data, and on both 3 and 5 May, in another place, Baroness Hooper repudiated any intention to create league tables. In the Bill, however, there is nothing to prevent the publication of such tables.
The Government may say that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent school governors and LEAs from producing statements on social indicators if that is what they wish to do. On 5 May, the Baroness Hooper said in another place:


It may well best be left to local initiative within some general guidance rather than even spelt out in regulations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 701.]
When pressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last Wednesday on the issue of relative handicap in the tests at seven of children who have not received nursery education—and we have talked often enough about that particular problem, without having any effect on the Government's policy—the Secretary of State said that it was up to schools and LEAs to decide whether to publish the results, although earlier he had said that that was recommended and that schools could show the number of children with or without formal pre-school education in their reports if they so wished.
The lack of importance that the Government place on social factors is evident. The Government state that aggregated test results "must" be published for pupils at the ages of 11, 14 and 16. However, it is "recommended" that aggregated test results are published for pupils at the age of seven. That means that there will be unreal and artificial comparisons between schools and a comparison of like with unlike. We should not be surprised at that, because the Government have been completely insensitive to the effect of their policies on children and their families.
According to the Child Poverty Action Group, the number of children living in poverty, on or below supplementary benefit level, rose by 72 per cent. between 1979 and 1983. One in five families in Britain are now estimated to live on or below the poverty line. Recent changes in the social security system have had a severe effect on families throughout Britain. The new social fund provides loans in place of the single payment grants for items such as furniture, children's clothes and cooking equipment. That imposes a further hardship on families by requiring them to make repayments on those loans from their already inadequate levels of benefit.
I am sure that I do not need to repeat the elements that determine whether a person is classified as deprived. I simply remind Conservative Members that in my constituency—as in many of my hon. Friends' constituencies—nearly one in three men have no job and 61 per cent. of those working have incomes of £4,000 a year or less. There is absolutely no comparison between the circumstances of and opportunities for children who grow up there and the circumstances of children who grow up in the lush, leafy lanes of Hampshire, where privilege and plenty are taken for granted.
Children living in poverty are not evenly spread throughout the school system. If they were, there would be no need for my proposal. However, like it or not, social conditions have an enormous effect on performance in tests, as is shown by the work published by researchers at Sheffield university in an attempt to find a fair system of comparing examination results.
Despite what Ministers say, when the results are published, inevitably they will be used to compare schools. League tables will be drawn up of local schools, despite the protestations of Baroness Hooper, who, on 3 May, said in another place:
It is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 501.]
She repeated that on 5 May saying:

It is not true to say that the results would be given wide publication. It is certainly not intended to have a league table."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 704.]
What will prevent that? The Bill will not stop it. What did the noble Lady's colleagues mean, or did Baroness Hooper not understand? Was she simply groping in the dark? Was she as confused as everyone else about the Government's intentions? That includes the Secretary of State.
We all know what will happen. There will be a wide publication of league tables of exam results. Local journalists will vie with one another to be the first off the mark with shock horror stories of successes and failures.
If the Bill remains as it is, the results will be incomplete. They will provide a false impression of the performance of a school and its pupils. Without some form of adjustment, parents and policy makers will make judgments on the basis of incorrect information. Those judgments will perpetuate disadvantage because they will not examine the performance of the school and its children in relation to the surrounding conditions. Instead, they will ignore the factors that contribute to the results.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman—sorry, hon. Lady—give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: As the hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish whether I am a lady or a gentleman and since he will not lift the guillotine motion, I will not give way.
One of the Government's main arguments for the abolition of the Inner London education authority was its supposedly poor performance in exam results. Using the Sheffield study, ILEA was placed in an average position among LEAs once social factors were taken into account. In that study, the London borough of Bromley was given a very poor rating in exam results once its favourable social factors were taken into account. An under secretary at the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Barry Wakefield, was reported in the Evening Standard on 31 May as saying that it was vital to consider much more than exam results when rating a school's performance. Does that mean that the Secretary of State is out of tune with his own officials as well as with the Prime Minister?
Universal health care based on need is under severe attack. While individuals may not yet live or die according to their hank accounts or their employer's insurance, for many the quality of life is set from birth. The same process is now occurring in our schools where the size of parents' bank accounts increasingly determines whether there are enough books to go round or whether children learn to play a musical instrument. The hardship funds of many parent associations are overstretched for basic educational needs. That cycle of deprivation means that the children of the poor and deprived are condemned to become the parents of the poor and deprived. Our amendment will ensure that far better information about the quality and performance of schools will reach parents and LEAs than would result from the publication of the crude test scores that the Government plan.
The Government will claim that there is nothing to stop LEAs publishing a statement on the social composition of the school if they so wish. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent governors from publishing what they believe is relevant in achieving the results. They may even go so far as to promise that they will give guidance to governors and local authorities in publishing the statements. However, that is not enough. If a statement of


the social composition of a school is purely voluntary, some schools and LEAs will not publish it. Unless all schools publish a statement, it will be a worthless exercise. People will still compare like with unlike.
We are asking the Government to accept the recommendations of the TGAT report in full. We believe that the implementation of the Bill without our amendment will result in the publication of test results that falsely indict a teacher or a school. To do that on the basis of the publication of incomplete and therefore unrepresentative inaccurate test results is completely immoral.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The Lords amendments clarify the scope of the provisions covering the publication of assessment results, so that they might also cover, for example, GCSE and A-level results. Those are already covered by the Education (School Information) Regulations 1981, but it will be helpful to have them brought within the scope of the new provisions to ensure the consistent treatment of results of various assessments.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) seeks to add to those amendments an amendment dealing with the publication of aggregate assessment results. In a moment, I shall deal with our reasons for not wishing to accept that amendment, but at this stage I shall make certain general remarks about the assessment arrangements for which the Bill provides so that they may be set in context.
My right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 7 June, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), defined the main principles that the Government have decided should form the basis for a national assessment and testing system. First, the task group on assessment and testing endorsed the Government's proposal to test pupils at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. It pointed out that age seven in particular represents the point of transition from one phase of schooling to the next, when children move from an infant to a junior school. If at that point a pupil's literacy and numeracy foundations have not been properly laid, he is more likely to fall increasingly behind than if assessed and tested at that age so that one can know exactly what progress the child has made. Age seven also comes at least two years into the first phase of schooling, so that pupils feel settled by that time and teachers will have an opportunity to know them better.
Secondly, we are not talking about a series of pass or fail examinations, as Opposition Members sometimes like to portray, consisting entirely of pencil and paper tests. We refer rather to attainment targets, set to establish what children should normally be expected to know, understand and be able to do at given ages. They will enable the progress of each child to be measured against national standards. Assessment will be by a combination of national external tests and internal assessment by teachers, moderated to ensure consistent standards. Both teacher assessment and testing will be curriculum-related, focusing on attainment targets for the core and foundation subjects.
At age seven, and also largely at age 11, the TGAT report sensibly recommended the use of topic-style tasks as the main form of test, in assessing attainment in the core

subjects and in certain other key areas. At all ages, oral and practical—as well as written—means of assessment will be employed. In other words, the work that will be tested and assessed will be very much the kind of best practice that one sees currently in our schools.
Assessment results will be used formatively to help better teaching and guide teachers' decisions about a pupil's next steps, and summatively to inform parents about their child's progress; in other words, to answer those frequent questions from parents which are often considered simplistic but the answers to which indicate to the parents, if to no one else, how much progress their child has made.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister give the House a guarantee that adequate resources will be available to help those children who are found to be falling behind to catch up—in particular, educational psychologists who may be needed to discover the specialised problems that children have? Testing is all right, but the key is whether the resources will be there to help children catch up, if they are found to have problems.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is obvious that in taking on the task of trying to ensure that children reach a certain level of attainment, children who have fallen behind will be encouraged—as I hope happens at present—to have extra tuition or other help. I remind the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that such help is consistently given already in a variety of different ways. One would certainly expect schools, through their financial delegation, to allocate sums of money that will ensure that teachers and parents are satisfied, particularly at the child's early age, that any falling behind can be dealt with.
Different levels of attainment and overall pupil progress will be registered on a 10-point scale, as also recommended by TGAT, covering all the years of compulsory schooling. Therefore, at a given age the level reached on the scale for a particular subject area will indicate whether a pupil is making satisfactory progress; whether special help is needed to enable him or her to overcome any apparent weaknesses; or whether such help is rather required to ensure that exceptionally rapid progress is sustained.
At age 16, the GCSE will continue as the main form of assessment, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Pupils not taking the GCSE in all the foundation subjects will be assessed in those subjects at an appropriate level under the national assessment system. That assessment framework has been widely welcomed and it will play a key part in maintaining and improving teaching and learning standards in our schools. We are satisfied that it is both practicable and affordable. With SEAC and other appropriate bodies, we shall as a matter of urgency determine the most cost-effective means of providing the necessary organisational and teacher training arrangements to underpin the new framework, with a view to its implementation alongside the national curriculum from September 1989.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke about the difficult issues raised by the publication of assessment results. I remind the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that individual pupil's assessment results will not be published as raw material, but that, as she said, aggregated results at ages 11, 14 and 16 will be. That needs to be done so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or local education authority.


Parents cannot make a judgment about a school unless they have information about the way in which that school's pupils perform in general, particularly at the key ages. There is no legal requirement for schools to publish results for seven-year-olds, although we strongly recommend that they should do so in the interests of consistency, as well as in the interests of the public's right to know. The importance of that is to enable parents to be informed at that crucial and critical stage about the performance of the primary school they are choosing for their children. We shall not expect or encourage schools to include results of children having special education needs as part of their aggregate figures.
We are aware of the danger of such results being interpreted in an over-simplistic way and will take into account TGAT's advice that they should be presented only in the context of a full report on a school's activities, and with reference to any relevant socio-economic and other factors. However, it would not be appropriate to write into the Bill a detailed description such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.

Mr. Straw: Why not?

Mrs. Rumbold: Because the Bill is a framework, and it is not designed to describe in detail every process for which it makes provision. The exact form of the regulations governing publication of assessment results will be decided following expert advice and after lengthy consultation—which I hope will be welcomed by Opposition Members, as they seem greatly to depend on consultation, and masses of it—and to pre-empt that by making the proposed amendment would be wrong.
I know that many people have been concerned lest children with special education needs or with temporary problems, perhaps caused by trouble in their homes, are neglected under the new arrangements. For example, the needs of children whose first language is not English must be taken into consideration. Where appropriate, the Bill provides for exemption from, and modification to, the national curriculum and assessment arrangements for children with temporary difficulties as well as for those with special education needs. However, I emphasise that, so far as possible, we want all children to have attainable goals, to encourage their development and to promote their self-esteem.
It is a mistake for people to assume that, because some children do not, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley described them,
grow up in the lush, leafy lanes … where privilege and plenty are taken for granted",
they will not have potential at some point or another. That depends just as much on the quality of the school and its provision as on the child's background. It is a great mistake to make an assumption that will be detrimental to many children simply because they appear to suffer from a social disadvantage.
The test developers will be asked to have in mind the requirements of children with special education needs when devising suitable tests to cover the range of attainment on a 10-point scale, and, where appropriate, TGAT has recommended that pupils having difficulty with English should be tested orally in their own language, except where the assessments relate to progress in English.
I believe that any possible problems are outweighed by the need for schools, local education authorities and the public at large to have a better indication of how schools

are performing in relation to others, both in similar localities and across the nation as a whole. We shall certainly consult widely before deciding how results should be presented.

Ms. Armstrong: As with other parts of the Bill, there are different reasons why different parts of the Government are interested in publishing results from schools. There is the "rational" reason put forward, as always, by the Secretary of State—and today by the Minister of State—and by some of his civil servants; and there are the atavistic gut feelings of the Prime Minister and her few friends.
Let us pretend that the Secretary of State has won the debate—for the Prime Minister will presumably let him keep some aspects of the Bill for himself. Why would he be interested in publishing these results? In the first place, he argues that they will tell us which are the good schools and which are the bad, and that that knowledge will force schools to do better. Let us take him at his word, and argue the rational case for data about deprivation to be added to the information that he has already said is important.
In the first place, any private enterprise company will only make sense of its output—in this case exam results—in relation to its input—in this case the children and their backgrounds. The DES would, I am sure, admit that all the research on educational attainment demonstrates that different children from different backgrounds have different chances of success in the education system. That is not to say that every child from a certain background will not get on or will inevitably end up taking a particular route, but the research tells us that background has some effect.
I know that the Prime Minister thinks that all those facts are worth nothing when weighed against her corner-shop certainties, but even her friend Ronald Reagan has recognised some elements of the equation and reaffirmed his commitment to Head Start as a means of ensuring some compensatory work on background and deprivation. The Department of the Environment recognises it when it distributes rate support grant. Why cannot the Government recognise it in providing information about schools?
If we fail to do this, it is inevitable that—given the educational knowledge that we have—some bad schools will appear good, favoured as they are by a certain sort of intake but failing to add much to it, or to "stretch" and "push" pupils in the way that we know is possible. I suspect that the few Tory chairs of local education authorities who are still talking to the Secretary of State would readily confirm that to him. By simply publishing outcomes, without the consequences of incomes, we shall lose the possibility of judgment.
Some may argue that it is very difficult to sort out the criteria that matter from those that do not. That is true, but if the Government find it so hard, I suggest that they turn to the Department of the Environment, which has considerable expertise in deciding the different indicators for its distribution of rate support grant. If the Secretary of State has no faith in his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment—which I might understand—perhaps the Government will listen to eduationists who have worked out a series of educational priority indicators.
8.45 pm
We are not short of information and knowledge, although we are very short of politial understanding from some. If the Secretary of State has won the argument with the Prime Minister, he will accept our amendment and follow up the debate with his senior officers. If he has lost, however, we shall inevitably be left with a series of meaningless tables that will allow the Prime Minister and the friends in the gutter press whom she has honoured to pillory schools and localities.
One statistic may help the Minister to understand what I am trying to say. Last year's general household survey demonstrated that the daughter of an unskilled worker had a 1 per cent. chance of obtaining a degree, while the son of a professional worker had a 54 per cent. chance. Some would say that those statistics lead us to believe that class and gender bear some relationship to educational opportunity. The Government may be happy with the statistics, but do not let us pretend that they have anything to do with a sensible educational policy or that real parental choice can be provided on the basis of such silly information. We cannot be expected to believe that it has anything to do with increasing opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Opposition Members are interested in giving parents real choice and real information, and in giving real opportunities to children from disadvantaged as well as advantaged backgrounds. If that is what the Government are interested in, they will accept the amendments.
But perhaps all this is just a bad dream. Perhaps this is the Bill of a civilised and intelligent person, and perhaps the civilisation in him will allow him to accept the amendment and provide a proper method of understanding the performance of our schools.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am delighted to take part, for the first time, in a debate on the Education Reform Bill, albeit a debate on Lords amendments.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was in a quandary. I remember from the days when I was doing my postgraduate certificate of education that Socialist educationists always claimed that one of the reasons for having comprehensive schools was that it was the environment that shaped children's futures. Conservative Members accept that it is a mixture of environment, heredity and intelligence, and that intelligence is both innate and developed by circumstances. It is therefore important for parents to have the opportunity to see how schools operate to judge whether their children are receiving education appropriate to their intelligence and aptitude.
I cannot understand why, every time we put forward a measure to increase the amount of information available to parents, Socialist Members vote against it. It was true in 1981, when we put forward the Education (School Information) Regulations. At that time we argued that O-level and CSE results should be made available. We heard then from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) the same objections that there would be league tables, that parents would make the wrong decisions and that the press would get the wrong end of the stick. After seven years' experience of the school information regulations, we know that that has not happened.
It is important to look at academic information and research. It shows clearly the effect that schools can have on a child's progress. One returns to Neville Bennett's report 'Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress" published in 1976. After he had looked at 871 primary schools in Lancashire, he said that the results formed a coherent pattern and that
The effect of teaching style is statistically and educationally significant in all attainment areas tested.
He said that teaching style clearly had a more powerful effect on progress than does pupil personality, since most pupil types show better progress under formal teaching. Mr. Bennett continued:
The central factor emerging from this study is that a degree of teacher direction is necessary, and that the learning experiences provided need to be clearly sequenced and structured.
Michael Rutter, writing in 1979 a research paper "15,000 Hours" into secondary schools in the inner London education authority, said that, although they served an inner city area of chronic social disadvantage, some of the schools seemed nevertheless to have provided a positive influence on their pupils' development, while others had been less successful in doing so. He continued:
In general, schools performed fairly similarly on all the various measures of outcome. That is, schools which did better than average in terms of the children's behaviour in school tended also to do better than average in terms of examination success and delinquency.
The latest research is by Peter Mortimore, a former ILEA officer who was a member of ILEA's staff when I was an ILEA member but is now professor of educational research at Lancaster university. Writing in his book "Better Schools" this year, he said that he looked at 50 ILEA junior schools and that reading progress and the quality of school that a child attended was four times as important as a child's age, sex or background. In maths, he said that the school was 10 times more important. He also said that there is a vast difference between the best and the worst schools. Children in the best schools were 28 per cent. above the average in reading, while those in the worst were 19 per cent. below the average. In maths, pupils at the best schools were performing 21 per cent. above the average, while those at the worst were 21 per cent. below average.

Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. Peter Mortimore said:
The quality of school that children attend has more effect on their educational progress than their social background. The essential factor influencing pupils' progress is the quality of the school.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Bennett: Those are three quotations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Two hon. Members cannot be on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Bennett: Those are three quotations from three different academic works, published in the last 10 years, that show the importance of the school on the child's progress.
If parents are to make decisions about whether a child's progress is being hampered, they have to have information. Knowledge is power. What disturbs me is that Opposition Members adopt the same attitudes as have pervaded the educational establishment for the last 40 or 50 years. In the past there was the secret garden of the


curriculum. Only the teachers' unions had the key to that garden. Parents were excluded. The educational progress was described by writers on education as a black box: children walked into it at one end and walked out of it at the other and what happened in the middle was nothing to do with the parents or the wider community. Those days have gone. We are determined to have open government and open management of schools. Assessment testing at seven, 11 and 14 is vital. We cannot say to parents, "We shall not allow you to see how your child is doing against national standards." The results must be published and parents must be able to see which schools in an area are not doing as well as others.
The time has come when we should trust the people to make sensible decisions on the information that is made available. It is time that the Socialist attitude towards parents of not trusting the people should end. I have been a teacher. I have also been an education officer with responsibility for writing the annual reports of the education committee on the performance of schools and their examination results. I know, therefore, how important it is for parents, councillors and everybody who is involved in education to see exactly how schools are performing.
Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's case. They do not trust the people of Britain. They believe that educationists are the only people who are capable of making decisions and that we should continue to have a secret garden from which the public are excluded.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: There are two essential issues. First, how close are the Secretary of State's proposals to the TGAT recommendations? Secondly, how close are they to the wish of the Secretary of State's rival, the Prime Minister, for straightforward, crude testing? The Minister of State offered no reassurance. She offered a softly, softly approach. She said that the Government accept TGAT but that they reject the social factors that are needed to make it work.
The alternative to crude testing is to work with the teaching professions and with educational experts to implement not just the theory but the letter and spirit of TGAT. That will be achieved only with proper resources and only if we are prepared to shoulder the practical difficulties of publishing meaningful background information to illuminate the test results.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) ignored the substance of the Opposition's case, which is to give parents the information that they need and to give them the ability to see what is going on in schools. The Prime Minister will not let her Secretary of State for Education and Science do what he knows is right. Anybody who believes that the Government mean to make TGAT a reality must be worried by what is happening in the school branches of the Secretary of State's Department. The assessment of performance and public examinations used to be part of schools branch 3, in common with curriculum policy under the same Under-Secretary of State. All assessment testing and examination policy has been taken away from that branch and given to the new schools branch 4.
Will the Minister explain why assessment policy in its new home has been put alongside the highly political promotion of city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools? It illustrates that real control is in the hands of the political bosses in Downing street, not in

those of the educationists in the Secretary of State's Department or the profession. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point. Then the hon. Member for Pembroke might look for genuine, real and full information, not for the kind of phoney, half information that he peddled earlier on.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided Ayes 193, Noes 314.

Division No 419]
[8.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Thomas


Blair, Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Holland, Stuart


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Cartwright, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Greville


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cousins, Jim
Lambie, David


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cummings, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ron


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Doran, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Faulds, Andrew
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Short, Clare


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L.
Wall, Pat


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Robertson, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey
Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, Jimmy


Rooker, Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Robert N. Wareing


Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Adley. Robert
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Curry, David


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Evennett, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Farr, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Favell, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey





Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gardiner, George
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Hon Francis


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayward, Robert
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunter, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knox, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shersby, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Sims, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trippier, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Keith
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Summerson, Hugo
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 42

DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 89, in page 36, line 22, after "Chapter" insert
'and the granting of approval to proposals submitted under section 52(2) below in accordance with the provisions of that section'

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Lords amendment: No. 113, clause 52, in page 46, line 31, after "majority" insert
'of parents eligible to vote'

Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 45, line 9, leave out from 'is' to 'is' in line 10 and insert
`eligible to vote in the ballot'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 45, line 19, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment (c) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 46, line 11, at end insert—
'(7A) Where in the case of any ballot held in repect of a school in accordance with this section other than one held by virtue of this subsection ("the first ballot") the total number of votes cast in the ballot by persons eligible to vote in the ballot is less than fifty per cent. of the number of persons so eligible, it shall be the duty of the governing body to secure that another ballot ("the second ballot") is held before the end

of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date immediately following that on which the result of the first ballot is determined.

(7B) In any case to which subsection (7A) above applies—
(a) the result of the first ballot shall be disregarded for the purposes of section 52(1) of this Act; and
(b) subject to subsection (7C) below, the provisions of this section shall apply as they apply in a case where the governing body of a school is under a duty by virtue of section 50 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section.

(7C) In any such case—
(a) those provisions shall apply with the omission of subsections (3)(a) and (5); and
(b) subsection (5A) above shall be read as if the information there referred to were the information given for the purposes of the first ballot.'.

Amendment (d) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 46, line 28, at end insert—
'(10A) For the purposes of this section, a person is eligible to vote in any ballot held in respect of a school in accordance with this section if he is—
(a) known to the governing body to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school; and
(b) named as a parent of such a pupil in the register kept in accordance with the requirements of the 1944 Act in the case of the school, as that register has effect on the date immediately following the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date on which the relevant resolution or request was passed or received by the governing body.

(10B) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (10A) above, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school; and in paragraph (b) of that subsection the reference to the relevant resolution or request is a reference to the resolution or request (mentioned in section 50(4) of this Act) by reference to which the ballot is required to be held or, where the ballot is a second ballot under subsection (7A) above, by reference to which the first ballot was required to be held.'.

Amendment (e) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 46, line 31, after 'majority', insert
`of votes cast in the ballot by persons eligible to vote in the ballot (within the meaning of that section)'.

Amendment (f) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 62, line 16, at end insert—
'Where section 51(7A) of this Act applies in the case of any such ballot, the references in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b) above to the result of that ballot shall be read as references to the result of the second ballot required by that subsection.'.

Amendment (g) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 90, line 40, leave out from 'given' to 'and' in line 41, and insert
`for the purposes of the originating ballot to persons eligible to vote in that ballot (within the meaning of section 51)'.

Amendment (h) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 206, line 26, at end insert—
'50A. In section 80 of that Act (registration of pupils at schools), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the prescribed particulars shall include particulars of the name and address of every person known to the proprietor of the school to be a parent of a pupil at the school.".'.

Mr. Baker: As my noble Friend, Lord Trefgarne, said in another place, we see no need for amendment No. 89. No school may become grant maintained unless it has followed all the procedures set out in the Bill. The amendment adds nothing to these requirements. However, if the House wishes the amendment to remain, I do not intend to press the matter. The substantive amendment is


amendment No. 113. I am asking the House to agree not with that Lords amendment but with the amendments that we have tabled.
We have spent many hours in the House and in another place debating the proposals for grant-maintained schools. Curiously, perhaps, the Opposition have used much of that time not to consider the concept of grant-maintained schools or their financing and staffing but to concentrate on the proposed testing of parental opinion. They have argued about who is a parent, although we have stated the Government's position many times. They have tried to invent fancy franchises that would ensure that few applications come forward, and they have implied that the ballot of parents somehow decides whether a school becomes grant-maintained instead of simply being part of a process whereby an application is submitted for my consideration.
What has all the fuss been about? It has been about our proposal that a simple majority of the parents voting in a ballot should determine the outcome of that ballot. Our system of democracy has surely survived on the principle that the majority derives its legitimacy from voting. Any other approach will always be open to challenge. A simple majority of those voting is a clear, comprehensible and straightforward way of testing opinion. The arrangements for a secret postal ballot—which in these circumstances will be organised by the Electoral Reform Society—and for the distribution of fact-sheets with ballot papers will ensure that every parent has the chance to cast an informed vote.

Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend will remember that when the House dealt with referendums for Ireland, Scotland and Wales it built in certain requirements for majorities.

Mr. Baker: I am aware of that point. Someone reminded me of the Division record on the qualifed majority on the Scottish referendum. Apparently I was not present in the House. If I had been, I probably would have supported it. On the European referendum, there was not a qualified majority but a straightforward majority.

Mr. Straw: What about a qualified majority?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asked me that question in Committee, and I shall answer it in exactly the same terms as I did then. I do not favour a qualified majority. A better way of solving most of these matters is with a simple majority, as I have said consistently.

Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman does not favour a qualified majority, will he explain why in the Employment Bill 1982 he voted for what was not just a qualified majority but an overwhelming majority of 80 per cent. before a closed shop could be accepted?

Mr. Baker: The answer is straightforward. I voted that way because that ballot was very decisive and men's and women's jobs were at risk. There is no risk of anyone's job being put at risk as a result of these ballots.
In another place the view has been expressed that a majority of those eligible to vote should endorse the making of an application. In other words, if 1,000 parents are eligible to vote, 501 must be in favour of an application

before it can go forward. To put it another way, if 499 vote and they are all in favour, no application results. The prime effect of this approach would be to enfranchise apathy and to give the abstainers equal weight with the opponents in blocking changes which others want. In my example, the 501 parents who chose not to vote would be assumed to be opposed to an application for grant-maintained status. I see no reason why that should be so. I therefore invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 113.
I accept that those who supported the amendment in the other place were not all totally hostile to the concept of grant-maintained status. I accept that in some cases there were worries that a well-organised minority group from one or other end of the political spectrum might, so to speak, hijack a school before the majority of parents fully appreciated the importance of what was happening. That point was made not only in the House but by several speakers in the other place. I think it most unlikely that parents will have the wool pulled over their eyes in that way, but, as the concern is such a real one for some people, I have given considerable thought to ways of meeting it.
I am willing to build in some further safeguards, and that is why I have tabled the amendments to the proposed Lords amendment. Those amendments will ensure that the process by which an application for grant-maintained status is initiated will be fully legitimised by the involvement of the whole parent body. With the permission of the House, I shall explain my amendments in more detail.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that all parents enjoy every possible opportunity to express a view on the proposition that their child's school should become grant maintained—whether that view is for or against. Not one parent should be able to say, once the dust has settled, that he or she did not fully understand that it was important to vote in the ballot. Not one parent should be left feeling that he or she had been misled into thinking that the ballot was somebody else's business. As I have said before, I am confident that there will always be tremendous public debate and parental interest in the run-up to a ballot. I do not believe that parents will not bother to vote. I am sure that many LEAs will campaign strongly against the proposal and will urge a big turnout. Just to be quite sure, I propose to introduce a new dual-ballot arrangement.
The arrangement will operate in the following way: a ballot will be held and, if 50 per cent. or more of the registered parents vote, the results will he determined by a simple majority of those voting. That is a straightforward ballot. If less than 50 per cent. of parents vote in the first ballot, a second ballot will have to be held within 14 days of the result of the first one being declared. Once again, all the parents will receive ballot papers from the Electoral Reform Society, this time with a statement explaining why the second ballot is necessary and reminding them what they are being asked to decide. The result of the second ballot will again be determined by a simple majority of those voting, but this time it will be conclusive, irrespective of the turnout.

Mr. Straw: I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer an important point of detail. The first ballot might he held in mid-December—say, on 18 December—in


which case the 14 days would fall in the Christmas and new year period. That is perfectly possible. Is there any provision to take account of that?

Mr. Baker: We intend to issue guidance and we shall try to encourage schools and governing bodies not to hold ballots on the last day of term. It is most unlikely that that will happen. The hon. Gentleman is looking for extreme cases. If that is the best criticism that he can find of our proposals, it is a pretty poor effort.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend has clearly stated that it will be a simple majority, but I cannot find specific reference to that in the amendment. Does the amendment specify that it will be a simple majority?

Mr. Baker: I shall give my hon. Friend the exact phrase when it is brought to my attention, but I assure her that I am satisfied that it will be done by simple majority.

Mr. Michael Latham: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will clarify another matter. After all the procedures have been gone through, including the second ballot, if necessary, will the decision remain his? Will he be able to overturn the second ballot, if necessary?

Mr. Baker: Let me remind the House of the procedures for obtaining grant-maintained status. First, the governing body must meet to consider whether it wants to proceed. If it decides that it wishes to proceed, it must meet again within 28 days so that the governors can reflect upon the decision, as it is clearly an important matter. They must then ask the Electoral Reform Society to organise a postal ballot along the lines that I have described. The postal ballot will then be held, and on some occasions there may be a second postal ballot. However, the ballot itself does not determine whether a school becomes a grant-maintained school. It merely triggers the third process. The governors then have to put forward a proposal and publish it just as they do with a proposal under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 for the amalgamation, closure or expansion of a school. The proposal has to be advertised and will be the subject of public meetings. It will then be submitted to the Secretary of State, who has to decide whether it should go ahead. That is the procedure.

Sir Charles Morrison: The Government believe in the concept of parent power. Interpretation of parent power is up to the individual. I presume, however, that it implies a decision by a large proportion of parents. Under the Government's amendment to the Lords amendment, it would be possible in the first ballot for 25 per cent. of parents plus one to decide the future of the school. If the second ballot had to be held it would be possible for I per cent. of parents, or even one parent, to decide. If I am right, does that not mean that the Secretary of State, rather than the parents, is making the decision?

Mr. Baker: It has always been implicit in the arrangements that the Secretary of State must be the person who decides whether a school becomes grant maintained, just as the Secretary of State decides about school closures or expansions. That has not changed. It will always be the Secretary of State who decides. Under the dual-ballot procedure, a second ballot will be held if 50 per cent. of the parents do not vote. If more than 50 per cent. vote—whether it is 51 per cent. or 80 per cent.—the first ballot is conclusive and the next stage is triggered. If

the turnout is lower, a simple majority is sufficient in the second ballot, and the second ballot will determine whether the trigger is pulled for the application.

Sir Hugh Rossi: As my right hon. Friend knows, I was reluctant to accept the Government's original proposal. I still find it difficult to understand how this convoluted and possibly expensive system of two ballots is preferable to the normal procedure for changing the constitution of an organisation, whether it be a cricket club or a building society. My right hon. Friend will recall from his lime at the Department of the Environment that 75 per cent. of members' votes are required before the constitution of a building society can be changed. I cannot understand why a simple proposition of the kind which requires a majority at least of those eligible to vote should not be sufficient to determine this matter.

Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend. There are many constitutional issues, not least election of local authorities, which depend not on qualified majorities but on simple majorities. The argument that I have put forward consistently—in Committee, on Report and around the country—is that a simple majority is the right and appropriate way to do it. In these amendments, I have tried to recognise the views that have been put to me, specifically by some church members, and the anxiety that a small group of parents could hijack a school and rush through the change. I have met that anxiety by these changes.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend has accepted an important principle, for which we have been arguing. Will he make it clear that he would be unlikely to accept a decision taken by a simple majority of a 50 per cent. turnout on the first ballot? That would mean that about 25 per cent. plus one would carry the decision when the original trigger is 20 per cent., which would put him in a dilemma.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is tempting me a little too far, as that would fetter not only my discretion but that of any holder of my office. I am sure that, legally, I would not be allowed to do so. In the same way, I cannot fetter the holder of my office by making commitments on grammar schools, comprehensives or reorganisations of schools. The extent of the turnout will be a material factor—material both to the parents and to the future of the school—and is bound to weigh heavily with the holder of my office. Before we had this dual system of 50 per cent. on the first round and then a conclusive decision on the second round, my argument was that if there were a derisory turnout—I do not accept that that would happen because, when the future of a school is at stake, parents are tremendously involved, as all hon. Members will know, and there is a huge turnout—and the holder of my office had taken a decision approving grant-maintained status, that may be a reason for setting aside that decision on judicial review. That is one of the factors that has to be taken into account. The reasonableness of the decision taken by the holder of my office would have to be apparent and patent. I have tried to explain, by question and answer, how this would be dealt with.
I emphasise that, in the procedure that I have outlined, no small group of committed parents would be able to bounce a school into an application for grant-maintained


status, but those who are determined to be apathetic, however many opportunities they might be given to participate, will not be an obstacle to those who believe that grant-maintained status is right for the school, and are prepared to put their energies into making it a success.
Once again, I emphasise that the ballot procedure is only the start of a statutory process—a point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). The holder of my office will still have to look at the resulting application on its merits, taking account of any objections that may be made, whether by parents or others concerned. The introduction of this two-stage procedure should put paid, once and for all, to anxieties about hijacks by well-organised minority groups.
The remaining amendments in this group are consequential. They may also clarify some points that have exercised hon. Members on both sides of the House. They establish once and for all that the electoral roll is the list of parents held on the admissions register at the school, and that it is for the governing body to make a determination in any case where a question is raised about a person's claim to be a parent. They also provide that parents should have 14 days to check that they are on the list once it has been formally decided that a ballot should be held that is to say, the governor's second meeting. Amendments to the later clause clarify references to first and second ballots.
The amendments demonstrate that we have listened to concerns expressed to us and done our best to meet them. I believe that these amendments finally remove any possible risk that a small group of parents could seek to determine the future of a school without the consequences being fully appreciated by all the parents.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When the local authority is acting in loco parentis, because a child is in care, will the authority have a parent's vote for each child in care?

Mr. Baker: That was made clear in Committee. The head of the home will be able to exercise the vote in the case of a child in care.
I have tried to make it clear that the amendment proposing a dual ballot is an attempt by the Government to meet the anxieties that have been expressed. It meets those anxieties, but I have no intention of yielding ground on the principle that a simple majority of those voting should determine the outcome of a ballot. That concept is well understood and conveys legitimacy. It has served us well over the years and will do so in the future.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State made clear, in the closing seconds of his speech, that the amendment is a concession without substance. The Government's original policy was to provide for a scheme by which a simple majority, however small the proportion of those voting, could trigger an application for opt-out status. That remains the position under these amendments, the only difference being that, where there is less than a 50 per cent. turnout in the first ballot, there may then be a second ballot. However, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) spelt out, there could, arithmetically, be a 1 per cent. turnout at the first ballot and a 1 per cent. turnout at the second ballot, which would still trigger an application

for opt-out. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, this is a convoluted and expensive arrangement written into the amendments which is designed to provide a veneer of democracy and legitimacy around a bad scheme.
The Secretary of State, wanting, as ever, to have it both ways, said in an answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)—I am glad to see a wry smile on the hon. Gentleman's face—that the extent of the turnout would be a material factor to weigh in his mind when he came to decide whether to accept an application. If the extent of the turnout is to be a material factor in the mind of the Secretary of State when he comes to weigh up whether to accept or reject an application, is it not appropriate that it should be a material factor in the mind of the House in establishing the scheme of voting in the first place? We should not just leave it to the Secretary of State—not just this Secretary of State, but any Secretary of State—but should meet the legitimate concerns of all hon. Members and state what should be a minimum proportion before which an application could be triggered.
The Secretary of State sought to brush aside a history of complete inconsistency on the matter of his votes on franchises by dismissing any suggestion, from anyone who was seeking other than a simple majority on any turnout, that we were in favour of fancy franchises. The Secretary of State's history in this House is that of a man who picks a franchise to get a result. I would not mind that argument from the Secretary of State if, every time an issue of the franchise had come up, he had said that the simple majority of those voting is inviolable and fundamental to our democracy.
The Secretary of State admits, however, that in relation to the referendums for Scotland and Wales he supported the requirement for a 40 per cent. minimum vote in favour of assemblies in those countries before such powers could be triggered. On the Employment Bill, he voted with many of his right hon. and hon. Friends for a scheme requiring that before a closed shop could be established there must be an 85 per cent. majority of those voting or an 80 per cent. majority of those eligible to vote. The then Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), now the Government Patronage Secretary—justified that proposal by the argument that the closed shop must have the overwhelming support of the work force because of the immense importance for individual rights."—[Official Report. Standing Committee G, 30 March 1982; c. 775.]
I do not agree with that argument, but I understand it. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science reflected that statement when he said that men's and women's jobs would be at stake in a closed shop. That may be so, but is not something quite important at stake if a school opts out of local authority control? Many parents will believe that their children's education is at stake when they consider the possibility of transfer from the local education authority to state nationalised education by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Pawsey: In that case, they will vote.

Mr. Straw: We used that argument in relation to the closed shop, but it was not accepted by the Minister in charge or by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The Housing Bill has been going through the House at the same time as the Education Reform Bill. On the very


day when the Secretary of State for Education and Science was asking the Standing Committee to accept this fancy franchise whereby a minority of parents could force a ballot through and trigger an opt-out application, he supported in the Cabinet what was then clause 96 of the Housing Bill whereby the absolute reverse obtained and tenants on a council estate could not prevent a private landlord from taking over their estate unless a majority of those eligible voted against the application. Were I outside the House, I should call that hyprocrisy. As I am in the House, I shall call it a double standard—the most excruciating, excoriating double standard on the part of a Government who do not understand the meaning of morality.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how synthetic his indignation sounds—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) would not shout at me like some shrew. The Labour party supported unions which for more than 100 years had leaders elected to positions of great power and authority by less than 10 per cent. of their membership. The hon. Gentleman's party never complained about that.

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point, I should point out that there is a distinction between elections for office when someone has to be elected because otherwise there will be a vacancy and elections which determine major changes in the status quo of institutions when, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green pointed out, it is important to have the consent of everyone concerned.
I do not like low turnouts in any election. I want a high turnout in every election because that is how one achieves the maximum legitimacy for the decision reached. Incidentally, I remember hearing the Secretary of State pontificating in the House on the subject of challenging the legitimacy of local authorities on the basis of low turnouts in elections. There was no suggestion that, because local councillors had been elected on a plurality of the vote regardless of the turnout, somehow their position was not legitimate.
In respect of a closed shop, of tenants on a council estate or of members of building societies, or in respect of something that Conservative Members understand rather well, the status quo of shareholders of a company, there must be what the Secretary of State would call fancy franchises—arrangements for which he has always voted in the past. For example, there might have to be a 75 per cent. majority at a special general meeting of a company in order to change the articles of that company or to do other things that could affect minority rights. Sometimes a substantial turnout with majorities larger than 50 per cent. has to be written in to respect the rights of minorities. That is the key issue here.
Under these arrangements there will be two ballots. The hon. Member for Devizes has already blown a hole in the arithmetic of those two ballots. What is more, this is so ill-thought-out that the Secretary of State has not even given the parliamentary draftsmen time to draft amendments so that the 14 days runs through the school term and not through school holidays.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I can give guidance.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State shakes his head and says that he can give guidance. He should know enough about the law to know that his guidance is not above the law or even equal to the law. If a ballot is held on, for example, 14 December—and that is not impossible to imagine—and turns out to be unsatisfactory, the next ballot has to be held within 14 days.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State says that he will give guidance. What happens if that guidance is not accepted? It is possible for a ballot to be held at Christmas, and ballots could easily take place at Easter or in the summer. The Secretary of State might have given himself guidance last year when he chose to consult teachers and parents over the six weeks of the summer holidays, but he did not. He knows that it is perfectly possible for a group of parents who want to achieve a particular result to fix a ballot so that many parents are not able to vote. In that event, his guidance would not count for a row of beans.
The Secretary of State spoke about the definition of parents. That matter was rightly subjected to great debate in the other place. Under the definition that the Secretary of State is applying, which I understand is section 114 of the 1944 Act, which is the bedrock definition, a parent of
any child or young person includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person. 
I think that the Secretary of State acknowledges that. That means that the number of votes that can be cast in respect of a child can be anything from nil to four or five.
One third of marriages end in divorce. Some children live with grandparents during the week and with their parents at the weekend, or with one set of parents one week and another set the next week. We all know that such people exist: that is reality. In such cases four votes could be exercised on behalf of one child. At the other extreme a single parent mother, perhaps with three children at the same school, is able to exercise only one vote.

Mr. Cormack: Is that true?

Mr. Straw: It is true, but if the Secretary of State thinks otherwise I shall readily give way to him.
The mathematics are quite horrendous. Some children could have 12 times as much voting weight exercised on their behalf as other children. A single child at school may have four effective parents, staying with one set one week and another set the next, and all have custody of the child and can exercise four votes on his behalf. On the other hand, there might be a single parent who is the only parent with custody of the child. He or She may have three children in school. The child with four parents and no siblings will have 12 times the voting weight exercised on his behalf than the child with one parent and two other siblings in the school.

Dr. Hampson: This is interesting and important. I do not read the provision in the same way as the hon. Gentleman. Surely there has to be a registered parent. It does not only matter how many parents, in theory, there


might be. Only one will be registered with the school, and only he or she can vote. The governors have the final say on who the registered parent is.

Mr. Straw: Yes. There is a registered parent. It is within my knowledge, however, that there are children who have two sets of parents. All of them will be registered—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Let the Secretary of State deny this if he wishes. Section 114 provides the bedrock definition of the 1944 Act. The Minister of State referred to and quoted this passage:
—Parent', in relation to any child or young person, includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person.
The issue was argued out in another place over some weeks, and, as I understand it, it was acknowledged that the arithmetic to which I have referred could apply. That was acknowledged also in Committee. There has never been any dubiety about this. I am sorry that it has taken until the closing hours of our consideration of the Bill for Conservative Members to appreciate the profound unfairness and arbitrary nature of the proposed arrangements. We proposed that the system should be one child, one vote. The interest of the parent arises out of the interest of the child. That seemed to be a simple, straightforward and fair arrangement which would be fairer between children and fairer between parents.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: On the definition of parent, the position is that which I have outlined. It is no different from the position that governing bodies have to resolve on the election of parental governors. They have to determine who the parent is. There are usually two parents and there might be one parent. In a few cases the courts have decided that there should be four parents. As I have said, the system is the same for parental governors.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said that the Opposition favoured the system of-one parent to have one vote per child. That is a crazy system. How do we determine which parent votes when the mother and father think differently?

Mr. Straw: Every advantage has a disadvantage. Our proposal is much less crazy and much fairer than the Government's, under which one child could carry forward four votes.

Mr. Flannery: I intervene on a kindred point, not exactly the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Will my hon. Friend deal with the problem of feeder schools to a secondary school when it is the secondary school that will vote to opt out? There will probably be three or four feeder schools.

Mr. Straw: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely.
In the ILEA ballot there was one vote per child, and in many families there were two votes.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What a fiddle.

Mr. Straw: No, it was not a fiddle. The only difficulty for the Secretary of State was when the result went the wrong way for him. There was no fiddle and there was no problem. The Secretary of State is wrong to draw an analogy with elections for parent governors. My experience—I think that it is shared by all my hon. Friends who have been involved in this process—is that the

elections are informal and often take place by acclamation. They raise none of the deeply divisive issues—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: What of September?

Mr. Straw: Many local authorities have had parent governors for years. Some areas have had so many parent governors that they will have to reduce the number of parent governors this autumn, not increase it. There has been no problem so far because this has not been fundamentally divisive to the interests of the school or the community.

Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way, because I want to draw my remarks to a close. We are considering a different circumstance that might be deeply divisive to a school's interest.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the register of the list of parents. He said that the list of parents would be drawn up by the governing body and that parents would have 14 days to check on the list after the election had been announced. If the Secretary of State wants a fair election, would it not be far better after the governing body had decided to trigger a ballot—if these are to be fair elections, and if there is to be a clear register—for the register to be published at the beginning of each academic year because it could be used for other purposes, for example, the election of parent governors and so could be checked, than for it to be made available in a period of considerable controversy, in the 14 days before a ballot takes place?
Throughout the debates there has been intense argument about what should he a legitimate vote to trigger an opt-out ballot. An opt-out ballot through which a school removes itself from local authority control and becomes a nationalised school is probably the most important decision that a school could make. We believe that, for that proposal to go forward, it must require the majority of the support of every parent in the school.
In the previous debate the Secretary of State was happy to praise the Bishop of London for what he had done in respect of religious education. Our amendment, which the Secretary of State wants to overturn, was proposed by the Bishop of London and supported by a majority of the Members of the House of Lords, who were in favour of the simple democratic principle that a major institutional change of this kind should be supported by an absolute majority.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I want very briefly to define my attitude towards opting out, because this is a short debate. Opting out is an excellent scheme, particularly bearing in mind what has happened to education in certain parts of Brent. Many parents in Brent are waiting for the proposal to come into action. The sooner and easier it comes into action, the better.
I should have liked the Secretary of State to go further with a full voucher system which would have revolutionised education in the way that we have revolutionised industry by making the consumer stronger than the producer. I welcome the present proposal as a stepping stone to that glorious time and praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's move along the line.
If we start these fancy franchises, where do we stop? Will people be elected to this House only if they get 51 per


cent. of a 98 per cent. poll? If so, hardly any of us would be here. If we stipulated 51 per cent. of the poll, two thirds of us would not be here now. Such a rule would obviously disfranchise the winner of the by-election in Kensington last week. Will we not allow the winner of that election to enter this House because there was only a 51 per cent. poll? Once we begin on this road, where do we stop?
In council elections, the turnout can be less than 30 per cent. That is often the case in Labour areas, although I hate to say so and risk upsetting Opposition Members. It is important to keep the few Labour Members there are in the Chamber. It is interesting to compare how many of my hon. Friends are present against the number of Opposition Members. Where is the Labour party's enthusiasm for opposing this measure? The fact is that Opposition Members know that their constituents will like it, and that parents will be going through the voting lists to see whether they will be free to do what they wish.
The more responsibility we give to parents, the better a society we shall have. In education, I have always supported the view of the parent against that of the so-called expert, who will always have a theory to defend and his future before him. The parent is the only person in education who is concerned purely for the education of his children. The more we put parents in charge, the better. There has been much talk recently about irresponsibility, and the only way to achieve responsibility among parents is to give them power. The state takes more and more power away from the family and then attacks parents for not doing their job.
I commend my right hon. Friend on the amendment. He is being very courageous and generous. Others might have ignored this aspect and would have driven on, saying that a 0·5 per cent. majority rather than a 1 per cent. majority should be sufficient. This is an act of great generosity, and I am amazed that any Opposition Member should oppose it. It just shows how much the Opposition are out of touch with the men and women of this country.

Mr. Morley: We should be clear that in this debate we are dealing with nothing more nor less than a form of institutionalised ballot rigging. The Secretary of State introduces this measure into the Bill and then makes an amendment that is of no credit to him or to the House. Every argument made by Conservative Members in support of this measure has been shot down by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
One point that has not been covered is that concerning the ballot for the closed shops, where there must be an 85 per cent. majority. Somebody commented, "It's a question of freedom". There is also a question of freedom in this respect. I refer to the freedom of parents with children in the feeder schools, but who will not be given a vote on the question of opting out. Nevertheless, the result of that vote may have far-reaching effects on those parents and on their children when they reach the school concerned.
Let us assume that in the first ballot, with 40 per cent. of parents voting, the majority goes against the school opting out. However, under the new amendment, because that percentage will be less than the majority of those eligible to vote, there would be a second vote, when 20 per cent. of eligible parents may vote to opt out. Which decision will influence the Secretary of State? He may argue that the ballot itself is simply a trigger mechanism. The argument against that is that the system will set parent against parent, will divide the community, and will drive a

wedge between the schools and the local authorities. At best, it will cause confusion, and at worst it will be a constant, running sore that will disrupt the children's education and the schools themselves, and they will be the losers.
I turn to the definition of "parent". My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is right in saying that there could be four parents with a right to vote. In another place, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, said that the education Acts
define a parent as including a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person, so there may he circumstances where a child has more than two parents."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 1326.]
That confirms that, in some situations, four people may have a vote in respect of one child. Lord Trefgarne went on to say that there might be court actions to resolve who actually has the vote and the custody of the child. Do I take it that court actions could be triggered off simply to decide who is the registered parent, and who has the vote?
Such examples are not uncommon. I knov, of one family in which one child is living with its grandparents, who have custody. In another family the children have gone to a sister, who has custody of the children within her own family. That can cause all sorts of problems and potential humiliation for stepfathers and stepmothers, who may find that the natural parents argue with the governors that they too have the right to vote in the registering process.

10 pm

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rather tortuous example that he has given would apply whatever the system of voting? Is it not about time that we started to live in the real world? If there is a contentious issue in a school, a large number of parents will become involved; it will not be a case of a small number coming in silently one night to vote clandestinely. Why should the votes of those who want the school to opt out be worth any more or any less than the votes of those who want it to stay in local authority control? Why should they not be of equal strength?

Mr. Morley: My point concerns the confusion and dissent that will result from the Secretary of State's amendment. I do not think that Conservative Members appreciate that in many institutions it is written into the constitution that any major constitutional change will require a majority of, say,75 per cent. or two thirds of those eligible.
Once the vote is taken, it is irreversible. Once the school has opted out, the parents cannot vote to opt in again the following year. That makes it all the more important that the decision is made by the majority. If the Government truly believe in parental involvement, and if they are genuinely concerned about the quality of education and the involvement of parents rather than with simple political doctrine, they will support the Lords amendment.

Dr. Hampson: Having started all this in Committee with a couple of attempted amendments that suggested either 50 per cent. or 40 per cent., let me first comment briefly on a couple of myths. It is a pity that my right hen. Friend continues to perpetuate them.
One myth is that this is somehow like a local government or parliamentary election. It is not an


election; we are not in the business of 30, 40 or 50 per cent., as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). We are talking about an expression of opinion about something of tremendous and fundamental importance which has the potential to cause an upheaval in the entire structure of education established in the 1944 Act.
Secondly, it is asked why 499 parents out of 1,000 should be denied their view. But we are talking about a vibrant, living community. The personal chemistry of parents, teachers and pupils is what makes it work, and if well over 50 per, cent. support cannot be achieved the school will be torn apart. The figure of 499 parents out of 1,000 essentially means that the decision will be taken by the parents of roughly 500 out of 2,000 pupils. If this is about the education of the children, as it should be, should we be changing the direction and future of the school on the basis of what the parents of 500 out of 2,000 would like to happen to their children?
As the Government have acknowledged tonight, the issue is about turnout. We seem to be saying that it does not matter what the theory is or what the legislation will be: in practice it will turn out all right; because a highly controversial decision is to be taken, many people will turn out to vote.
Educationists and parents are essentially conservative. Many of them will not want to take this tremendous leap into the dark, but when that happens there will. I agree, be a tremendous row and the local authority and the newspapers will weigh in. But that does not justify putting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successors into an embarrassing position. He has acknowledged tonight that the courts may be asked to decide whether he is acting reasonably. Despite the compromise that my right hon. Friend has offered, it will ultimately be his decision.
These are just trigger mechanisms. Are we suggesting that on one occasion the Secretary of State should approve a vote that is tantamount to 40 per cent., while on another occasion he should say no to a vote that is tantamount to 36 per cent.? If the figure for one school is different from that for another school, parents who are determined to opt out will challenge my right hon. Friend's decision. Furthermore, the teachers' unions may not want a school to opt out and they, too, will challenge the decision. The purpose of my amendment in Committee was to establish a clear yardstick so that potential uncertainties and consequential judicial review were eliminated. My amendment would have meant that, if the number fell below a clear proportion, opting out would not be considered.
We have to decide whether the compromise is acceptable. If the principle of opting out is to be accepted by the public—I believe in it and I have advocated it for a number of schools—the Government must be seen to be acting fairly. Until now I did not believe that the formula made it look as though the Government were being fair. If we had nothing to worry about because there would be a huge turnout, what on earth did the Government have to lose by having a proportion enshrined in statute? It made it look as though we were deliberately trying to shove through any proposal that was put forward, regardless—in other words, as though we were trying to

gerrymander the system. Therefore, I accept generously my right hon. Friend's proposals. He has tried to meet the central point of fairness having to be perceived.
I do not agree that the proposals are a recipe for a turnout on the second ballot that would be even smaller than the turnout on the first. If a second ballot has to take place, it will stimulate much more interest in the community and a very much larger turnout. That is at the heart of the compromise and I accept it.
As for the criteria, it might be better if my right hon. Friend were to extend his powers so that he could decide whether there are circumstances that warrant a second ballot. Only 51 or 52 per cent. may vote in the first ballot, which means that only 25 per cent. or 26 per cent. of the parents will carry the day and change the future direction of the school. As the process is initially triggered by 20 per cent., it is unacceptable that a school should be able to opt out on the basis of 25 or 26 per cent. If the vote is just over 50 per cent. in the first ballot, my right hon. Friend ought to have the power to ask for a second ballot.
I accept the spirit in which my right hon. Friend has offered the compromise. It meets the central problem and therefore should be accepted.

Mr. Giles Radice: One cannot understand the Secretary of State's attitude to the voting procedures unless one understands the background to opting out. It has always been a confused proposal. The Secretary of State saw opting out as a safety valve, and a number of Conservative Members supported that view. However, the Prime Minister saw the opt-out as a kind of revolution, such as the proposal to buy council houses in the first and second Tory terms of office, and she overruled her Secretary of State.
Those Conservative Members who supported opt-out as a safety valve realised that it was important to ensure that a minority of parents did not hijack the proposals. They saw, too, that to bring about such a change they needed overwhelming support among parents. That is why in Committee and on Report Conservative Members tabled amendments to write such criteria into the Bill. They were very sensible proposals, but unfortunately they were defeated.
In another place, an amendment was carried against the wishes of the Government but with the backing of a number of Government supporters. It was moved by the Bishop of London. It is worth quoting a few points from his speech, as it was an excellent speech, and perhaps the Government have not taken it into account sufficiently. The bishop said:
If the Government intend to establish the means by which schools are allowed to opt out of the local authority system, then it must be a fair system and one which serves the majority of parents … Why then are the Government not willing to accept the principle that the majority of those eligible to vote should be required to make the decision for a school to opt out? If the Government wish to provide parents with a choice in the education of their children, logically this should mean a greater choice for the majority of parents; yet the Bill does not ensure that choice for the majority in the opting out.
The bishop also pointed out the parallel with the Housing Bill. He said:
How can it be logical that where it is acceptable for a minority of parents at a school to decide its future, it is necessary for a majority of council tenants to decide to remain with the local authority? I am afraid one is driven to the point … that one purpose of the minority is to encourage schools to opt out"—[Official Report. House of Lords, 12 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 1225–26.]


That is basically the case. This Government suit the franchise to whatever case they have in mind. In the Housing Bill, they wanted to make it easy for things to happen and in this Bill they want to make it easy for schools to opt out, hence there will be just an ordinary majority.
The Secretary of State was faced with a dilemma, such as he has faced throughout the Bill. On the one hand, the Prime Minister would not allow the Secretary of State to accept the Lords amendments. On the other hand, he had to persuade the Conservative rebels and those in the other place. He had to come up with what he thought to be a clever wheeze which would be enough to disarm the rebels—after listening to the speeches that have been made I suspect he may have achieved that—without provoking an explosion from No. 10, and we have not heard that. Therefore, the Secretary of State might just have got away with it. However, the parents will be faced with a convoluted, cumbersome, confusing dual-ballot fudge which will still allow a well-organised minority to push through a grant-maintained school.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) rightly said, it is a concession without substance. I believe that it should be rejected and that instead we should accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Timothy Raison: It is indisputable that there has been a fair amount of unease about the qualifying procedure for opting out. I certainly welcome my right hon. Friend's willingness to make concessions. His concessions are not particularly radical, but they are helpful. However, I still wonder exactly how easy it will be to establish exactly who has the right to vote, and, even at this late stage, I wonder whether there is another way of looking at the matter.
Clause 50(2) seems to leave it to governors to decide which parents are to decide, and apparently that is the situation in other respects. My right hon. Friend's amendment to Lords amendment No. 113 confirms that. It says that the voter has to be
known to the governing body to be a parent
and must be named as a parent in the register.
10.15 pm
Having listened to the debate and thought about it, I am still bemused about exactly who can or cannot be a parent. Obviously, there are what one might call the natural and married parents and there would usually be no difficulty about that. However, what is the position of step parents? In what circumstances are they regarded as parents? What is the position of natural parents who are named on the birth certificate but are involved in a union where there has been no marriage? What is the position of natural parents who are not named on the birth certificate? How do we find out about that? In the world as we know it, it would be extremely difficult in many cases to compile a list of parents. It has been pointed out already that in many parts of the country there is a growing proportion of one-parent families. Will it be the duty of the governors to try to find out who the father is when a child is living with its mother? It will be a difficult process. To say simply that it is a matter for the guardians of a child or those looking after it does not seem to answer the case fully.
I want to press my right hon. Friend to explain things more fully and to ask him whether at this late stage there might be a different approach to the matter. My proposal to my right hon. Friend—if there is a chance to consider

it in the other place when the Bill returns there—is to require that those voting for the proposal are equal in number to more than half the number of pupils registered at the school. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take some interest in that proposal. That would mean that in a school of 1,000 pupils, at least 501 parents would have to vote for the proposal. There would also have to be a majority.
It would be easier to peg the qualifying number to the number of pupils rather than the number of parents. I am not arguing—my right hon. Friend has referred to this already—that there should be only one parental vote for each child. I am simply saying that there should be a minimum. If more than one eligible parent votes, so be it. If we were to ensure that the total number required to achieve the qualifying stage was equivalent to one for each child, we would have a practical proposal. That is a way of facing a difficulty in my right hon. Friend's proposals as they stand and the difficulty in the proposals from the other place. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he has a chance to think about the matter again, will follow my proposal.
Why have I not put my proposal forward as an amendment? The answer must be that I thought of it too late for it to be put on the Amendment Paper. I sent it for consideration but it arrived too late. Whether we adopt the proposal from the other place or my right hon. Friend's proposal we are still left with the difficult problem of defining who are the parents and in drawing up a list—there has to be a list to establish the qualifying majority. I hope that there will be a chance to look at the alternative approach. Having said that. I reiterate that I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has shown willingness to make a concession at this stage.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: We have been opposed to schools opting out. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] We work as a team—a relay perhaps, but as a team.
We are not opposed in principle to greater diversity in the provision of schools, but the Government's proposals are a charter for small groups of people to wreck a county's network of schools. Cornwall has relatively few schools—most of which are scattered with one per community—with shared arrangements for post-16 education. The loss of any one of those schools because of the interest of a temporary passing group of parents would be a permanent loss to the community that the school serves.
I represent a fast-growing county. As population pressures operate, schools that have opted out will have to take decisions about who can attend them. To take those decisions, they may ask for contributions, test pupils' ability or, given the nature of my county, decide them on whose family has been in the county for three generations. Whatever decision is taken, certain children will be prevented from attending the school in their community. There should be a county-based education structure—not one that depends on the whims and fancies of the community—which should not depend on a tiny minority of parents taking a decision that will affect not only children attending the school at that time, but all those who will attend it in the future.
Lords amendment No. 113 is a small but essential safeguard to ensure that there is a level of support for opting out before the proposal goes to the Secretary of State for his decision. It would have been better if the other


amendments debated in the other place to require more widespread consultation with the community and feeder schools had also been carried. It is surely right to require in law a minimum level of parental support before allowing politicians to exercise a political judgment. The Secretary of State said that his vote on a closed shop would be different because it would affect people's jobs. These proposals affect the future of the community's children and those children's children and make a far greater impact than the closed shop ever could.
I hope that we will have time to debate the other amendments, including amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 111, which would help with the problem of defining a minimum level of parental support and would define who is a parent for the purposes of the ballot by setting an upper limit to the number of people who can participate in the ballot. We have already heard—the Secretary of State could not deny that this could happen—that 12 times as many votes could be cast on behalf of some children as of others. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) called a block vote.
Amendments (a) to (h) to Lords amendment No. 113 break away from the essential principle outlined in the other place about the minimum stated level of parental support, and should be rejected for that reason. That should not be forgotten, especially as the Bill will not and cannot contain a balancing provision for a school to opt back in again. The Bill provides only for a one-way street. Therefore, most demanding requirements should be met before an irreversible decision is taken.
The Government's proposals, which have been brought forward at the last moment to fend off an embarrassing defeat, are inadequate. The Secretary of State has not accepted the essential point that was carried in the other place, and the Bill is the worse for that. Hon. Members should stand by Lords amendment No. 113.

Mr. David Madel: This was always going to be one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, from the time it emerged in the election campaign, and so it has proved. Guidelines by the Secretary of State still remain. Clause 51(7) states:
The Secretary of State shall publish any guidance given by him for the purposes of this section in such manner as he thinks fit.
Under subsection (8), if it appears to the Secretary of State
that the governing body of any school have acted unreasonably in the discharge of their duties",
he can declare the ballot void. I assume that the power to declare a ballot void for that reason applies also to the second ballot. The Secretary of State has those reserve powers. I was glad to hear, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), that the final decision on opting out remains with the Secretary of State. In the light of those two factors, there are plenty of safeguards against any unreasonable behaviour.
We do not know when the Bill will become law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has on his desk a number of cases of possible school closures. People ask what will cause a group of parents or governors to wish to opt out. There are some overwhelming reasons: constant threats of closure or clumsy attempts to reorganise education in such a way as would render a school a candidate for closure.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has probably guessed the point to which I am coming. Four calendar months ago, on 18 March, he kindly saw me and a delegation. For the third time in six years we have been trying to save Queensbury upper school in Dunstable from closure. Today I learned from his Department that Bedfordshire county council has demanded that it should see my right hon. Friend to argue the case for the closure of the school. If the Bill does not become law until the autumn, will my right hon. Friend take into account the results of a consultative referendum of parents on the future of their school? In the knowledge that the Bill is about to become law, that school and others under the threat of closure may try to opt out of control by the LEA, because the LEA has been trying to close them. Will my right hon. Friend take into account the results of a consultative referendum to be held early next term—I would not advocate such a ballot during the school holidays—among parents and governors on Queensbury's future if that is what those governors and parents want?
I feel that it is appropriate to raise this matter now. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows how contentious it is in Bedfordshire. It is my constitutional duty to raise it on behalf of Queensbury upper school, the parents, teachers and governors.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government's amendments are an attempt to put a cloak of respectability over an act of political cowardice. During the general election, the Secretary of State made it clear that he thought that this would be a minority sport for parents. He was drawn up abruptly by the Prime Minister, who made it clear that she thought that parents would adopt the opting-out procedure in droves. If the Secretary of State is so confident about the interest of parents in the opting-out procedure, why does he not, instead of adopting a two-ballot procedure to quell rebellion among his party, state that a clear majority of parents of children attending a school should vote to opt out of the LEA's control and care?
10.30 pm
It has already been pointed out that for council tenants to exercise the right to stop a private landlord taking over their estate, more than half of them have to vote. For the closed shop, it was 80 per cent. At the time of the devolution debate, it was at least 40 per cent. However, under this proposal the decision can be made by the majority of those voting. Under the double ballot procedure, it is hoped that further interest will be excited and additional votes cast. But what will happen if neither ballot produces a clear decision, although a small majority are in favour of opting out?
The Secretary of State has been at pains to emphasise that the ballot procedure will not necessarily result in the opt-out provisions being made. He says that he will take account of the number of parents who vote and the majority that is achieved. He could have saved himself the pain of all this decision making. He has repeatedly told us that the Bill is not about taking powers to himself but about giving them to other people. Why did he not have the confidence to say that he would not decide whether a school should opt out but would leave that decision to a majority of parents who sent their children to the school? He has not done that.
Conservative Members have pointed out that we do not insist on such a procedure at general or local elections. We do not do so because we know that such elections are held regularly and that every three, four or five years the electorate has the opportunity to make a judgment on its previous decision about who to put into power. In this case, the parents will have no further opportunity. A school may be returned to local authority control and care only if there is a disaster in the management of the school, in which case the local authority will have to pick up the pieces.
I appeal to those Conservative Members who from the beginning have had doubts about the proposal that a majority of those voting should be sufficient not to accept this facade of a double vote to encourage parental interest but to stick to their guns and be honest about the need to provide that a majority of parents must be prepared to vote for such a proposal.

Mr. George Walden: I am a supporter of opting out, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have not dissuaded me from that view. He seemed to me to be running around the periphery and pushing as hard as he could.
I support opting out for two reasons. First, it will shake local authorities' monopoly. They will never again be so complacent about educational standards. The second, associated, reason is that it will offer the parents of ordinary children a choice of education for the first time.
I know that the time is getting on, but I have three brief points to make. I have watched with interest the evolution of the Opposition's argument. They began by saying that parents would regard the very existence of the choice of opting out as so scandalous and unacceptable that there would be an overwhelming movement against it. The Opposition now say that the turnout might be too low to justify opting out. I invite Opposition Members to contemplate that contradiction.
I do not accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that we are involved in constitutional changes that have no connection with the position of local authorities.
Let us take, for example, Lancashire—the hon. Member for Blackburn will know what I am talking about—where the turnout in the last county election was 43·6 per cent. I am discussing not monopolies or closed shops, but education. In effect, there is, for those children in Lancashire, one education authority all of the time based on a less than 50 per cent. turnout. I am concerned about educational reality, and I want the children of Lancashire, like the children in other counties, to have a real choice in their schooling.
My third point relies on a hit of amateur sociological research. I looked carefully at the educational background of those in the other place who voted against my right hon. Friend's original intention. It is surprising that a large number of them had a de facto choice in their educational careers. They went either to opted out schools—by which I mean private schools—or to grammar schools. In other circumstances, our noble Friends are keen on the sporting interest. They should be encouraged to give a sporting chance to ordinary children, and let them have an educational choice as well.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Many people would be much more sympathetic to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about giving people choice if there were a choice of both opting in or opting out. He is saying that it must be a once and for all decision. The decision should be agreed by more than 50 per cent., because it cannot be reversed. The paradox of this debate is that Parliament is evading its responsibilities for education. The Bill should really be called the Evasion of Responsibility Bill, because we have spent a great deal of time talking about the opting out of schools when that has little relevance to what is going on in education. One finds that few teachers are concerned about opting out, so it is amazing that we should have spent hours in Committee and in the House dealing with that rather than with the real problems in education.
I went to a function on Friday night at the school at which I used to teach to mark the retirement of two excellent teachers. I thought that I would be inundated with comments about the Bill, but almost all the conversation that I had with other teachers with whom I had worked, and who I knew to be excellent teachers, was about how lucky these colleagues were to be retiring, and how they were looking forward to getting out of teaching as quickly as possible because they did not want to have to implement the proposals in the Bill. They did not go into the details of it—they simply wanted to opt out. That is the real opting out—the opting out of teachers. The Secretary of State should have been using this legislation to build up the morale of those who work in the schools.
Opting out will mean 12 months of uncertainty for the schools involved. That is the worst possible thing for education. Instead of getting on with improving the quality of education in a school and being concerned with what is going on in the classroom and with the individuals, people will be talking about the organisation of the school next year or the year after. As a former teacher, I know that when things are going wrong in the classroom, it is easy to start thinking about how one will plan things next year. The key point in education is to bring home to people the fact that the quality of teaching now is important, riot future planning.
What a mess the Bill has got us into. There is now an extremely complicated problem with franchise. We start off with 20 per cent. support to request the ballot. There are then the two governors' meetings, which are useful for a cooling off period, and then there are the two polls. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has worked out how the voting will take place. It cannot happen in December, because, of the two following ballots, in one at least it would be difficult to return the forms over the Christmas period. It would also be difficult to have a vote over Easter, not just because of the problem of contacting parents over the holiday period but because some pupils leave school at Easter, so it will have to be decided whether those people remain on the electoral list between one date and the next. The same thing applies at Whitsun, when all the summer leavers come off the register, and there will be a problem with the franchise. There is a problem in August, because a new group comes on to the franchise. The Secretary of State now has a cumbersome procedure.
The number of parents who could be involved came as a surprise to Conservative Members. The simplest procedure is one vote per child. The Secretary of State asked us how parents decide. From his experience, he should realise that one of the responsibilities of being a


parent is that one must take joint decisions. One has to decide which school the child attends. I am sure that he can think of many other examples. I assume that the Secretary of State manages to take such joint decisions in his household. Most parents have to make decisions. That may sometimes be a painful process, but parents have to take joint decisions, and it is ridiculous to suggest that that is impossible.
In the last few seconds available to me, I want to ask the Secretary of State how quickly he will carry out his part of the function. The procedure involves going through the school and holding two parents' ballots and the matter then returns to the Secretary of State to make a decision. How quickly will he make that decision? He said that he would have to take into account, for example, the number of people who voted. Presumably he will also have to take into account the views of local Conservatives in the area. He should give the House an undertaking that, within a month of his being asked to give a decision, he will do so. If he does not do that, uncertainty will continue in schools. We shall have a measure that will divide a school for over 12 months into those who want to opt out and those who do not, to the detriment of the education of children in the school. I ask the House to support the Lords amendments and to throw out the Government's proposals.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting, short and important debate. I have always been aware that, while Opposition Members have opposed the concept of grant-maintained schools, some Conservative Members have expressed anxiety about the legitimacy of the voting. That is why I have proposed the changes. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) who moved amendments in Committee and has argued strongly for the amendments that the Government have now tabled. I hope that he will recognise that we have tried to meet the anxiety that has been expressed and I am grateful to him for his support.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) raised the question of a different way of defining the electorate. That comes late in our deliberations and I cannot incorporate those changes, although I shall consider them carefully. It may be possible to take on board some of my right hon. Friend's points in the guidance that we shall issue.

"(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, it shall be the duty of the governing body of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status, at the request of any parent of a registered pupil at the school, to make available to the parent for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school, and to supply the parent with a copy of, a list containing the name and address of every person who is known to the governing body to be such a parent if the request is made—
(a) in connection with any proposal that a ballot should be held in accordance with section 51 of this Act; or
(b) where the governing body are under a duty by virtue of this section to secure that such a ballot is held, in connection with the holding of the ballot.

(8) A governing body shall not disclose to a parent under subsection (7) above the name and address of any person who has requested the governing body in writing not to disclose that information under that subsection; and accordingly the name and address of that person shall be excluded from the list there mentioned.

(9) A governing body who in pursuance of subsection (7) above supply copies of the list there mentioned may charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) raised an important constituency point. He will know that I cannot comment on a proposal concerning a particular school, but I shall explain the general position to him. If there is a proposal before me concerning the closure of a school, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, that decision will be put on ice for a time, probably for two or three months, so that the governers can decide whether they wish to proceed with grant-maintained status. If so, I must make the decision on that before dealing with section 12 closures.

We then had a contribution from the spokesman for the Liberal party. It was a typical Liberal contribution. In general, the Liberals are in favour of freedom of choice. They go up and down the country saying that they are in favour of choice, but when it comes to specific examples of choice for parents they run away. They then have the effrontery to talk of a qualifying majority. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is engaged in the leadership election of his party, but he is in favour of a simple majority. Will we have 40 per cent. for the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and 40 per cent. for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?

The most extraordinary thing about the debate has been the absence of Labour Members. Opting-out is one of the main issues of the Bill. Labour Members were against that at the election. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that he was against that. There are scarcely any Labour Members here. The entire speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was devoted to the technicalities of voting, not the issue of grant-maintained schools. After a year in post, supposedly determining Labour party policy, he has no policy save on one issue—for ballots, it is one vote per child. What a crazy idea that is. The hon. Gentleman has devised an electoral system that is likely to be in breach of the Equal Opportunities Act and will certainly divide husband and wife. After a year's constructive thought, the hon. Gentleman has no policy at all—

It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Lords amendment No. 89 agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 111: In page 44, line 48, at end insert—

(10) For the purposes of this section, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school."

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment: (c) in line 10, at end insert
'or section 51(7A) of this Ace'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Lords amendment No. 111, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 112, in page 46, line 4, at end insert—
(5A) Where the governing body of any school are under a duty by virtue of section 50 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section they shall make available to every person employed to work at the school for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school a document containing the information required by subsections (3)(a) and (5) above to be given to parents of registered pupils at the school.

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment:
(a), in line 6, leave out
'parents of registered pupils at the school'
and insert
'persons eligible to vote in the ballot'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Lords amendment No. 112, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 113, in page 46, line 31, after
"majority" insert
of parents eligible to vote

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 198.

Division No. 420]
[10.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Allason, Rupert
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Curry, David


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Day, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dicks, Terry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James





Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fry, Peter
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maclean, David


Gorst, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Madel, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Malins, Humfrey


Gregory, Conal
Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marland, Paul


Ground, Patrick
Marlow, Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Maude, Hon Francis


Hannam, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Hayes, Jerry
Mills, Iain


Hayward, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heddle, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Monro, Sir Hector


Hill, James
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hind, Kenneth
Moore, Rt Hon John


Holt, Richard
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Morrison, Sir Charles


Howard, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Moss, Malcolm


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mudd, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Needham, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Neubert, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Irvine, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Irving, Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Jack, Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Jackson, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Janman, Tim
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jessel, Toby
Page, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Patnick, Irvine


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Patten, Chris (Bath)






Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Summerson, Hugo


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tredinnick, David


Rost, Peter
Trippier, David


Rowe, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Scott, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Mike


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Stokes, Sir John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clay, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cohen, Harry


Barren, Kevin
Coleman, Donald


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bidwell, Sydney
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Tony
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Darling, Alistair


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Buckley, George J.
Dewar, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don





Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morley, Elliott


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter L.


Fraser, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Prescott, John


Galbraith, Sam
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redmond, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Gordon, Mildred
Reid, Dr John


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rogers, Allan


Grocott, Bruce
Rooker, Jeff


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Holland, Stuart
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Ingram, Adam
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Greville
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Turner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Vaz, Keith


Lambie, David
Wall, Pat


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Walley, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Litherland, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAllion, John
Wigley, Dafydd


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McKelvey, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McLeish, Henry
Wilson, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McTaggart, Bob
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McWilliam, John
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments (a) to (h) made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 135, 136, 138 to 141, 143, 144, 189 and 191 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 90 to 110, 114 to 134, 137, 142, 145, 146, 190 and 192 to 226 agreed to.

Clause 18

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER I

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 13, line 42, at end insert
`and "foundation subjects" includes "core subjects"'.

Read a Second time.

11 pm

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, at end insert
'(notwithstanding that "core subjects" shall be mandatory for all pupils in accordance with any Order made under section 4(2)(a) or (b) above, and that the other "foundation subjects" shall be advisory for the purposes of enabling teachers and headteachers to implement the National Curriculum having regard to any attainment targets or programmes of study specified under that section.)'.
The background to the amendment is of particular interest. The original intention according to the Secretary of State was to have the national curriculum of a grammar school type. The argument was that that curriculum would be common to all parts of the country. We heard from one Minister after another that the major purpose was to ensure that if a child moved from Devon to Durham the curriculum would be exactly the same.
During the life of the Bill in Committee, in another place and outside this House, that original notion of the national curriculum has been subject to heavy criticism. In his book "Take care, Mr. Baker!" Julian Haviland made the following comments on the Secretary of State's original concept of the national curriculum. He said:
I cannot recall one response that endorsed without reservation the structure for the curriculum which the Government was proposing.
That criticism from outside was echoed in the Chamber and in Committee. In Committee and on Report, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about the original concept of the national curriculum—its inflexibility, its inability to take account of cross-curricular activity, its inability to take account of innovation and to satisfy the needs of those who advocated particular subjects.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the autumn last year we had a very interesting late-night Adjournment debate on the role of Latin in our schools and whether it should form part of the national curriculum. That reflected a debate, not just on the Opposition Benches but on Conservative Benches, about the composition, nature and structure of the national curriculum. Legitimate points were made about the flexibility of the original proposals.
When the Bill reached another place, that process was strengthened by several contributions, not least that of Lord Joseph who argued very strongly that he was worried about the Government's national curriculum. He argued not that he was opposed to the Bill, but that he felt that the national curriculum was too prescriptive and was run in a way that was contrary to educational and political experience in other countries. He argued that it was contrary to his White Paper, "Better Schools", published two years previously in which the Government argued not for a national curriculum but for a core curriculum.
The next point is crucial in terms of the chronology of events. In the debates in another place, the Government seem to have recognised the need for change from a curriculum that is tight and prescriptive to one that is a good deal more flexible. Baroness Hooper suggested—and

this reflects the purpose of the amendment—that there should be a three-tier national curriculum with different characteristics for each tier. It was said that there was to be a core curriculum of mathematics, English and science, and that within it there would be tight attainment targets and work projects. Outside the core curriculum, there are to be foundation subjects, in which the attainment targets and the proposed work will be less tightly prescribed and more flexible, leaving teachers with the initiative to develop work fitted to the needs of their schools and pupils.
There will be a third area of subjects comprising music, art, physical education and—I would argue—religious education, where there will be even less prescription and content in terms of attainment targets, and even more flexibility for individual teachers. What we have is not the national curriculum that the Secretary of State introduced to the country a year ago, and which he said would be taught in all our schools. He gave the impression that it would be totally tight and totally prescriptive.
We have now seen emerge from the House of Lords a wholly different animal, which suggests that the Government have learnt a great deal from the criticism they received from the House and those outside it. According to Baroness Hooper, the Government are now proposing a flexible, three-tier national curriculum. Tonight, we want to hear from the Minister of State whether she agrees with her ministerial colleague, and that the nature of the Government's curriculum is as her noble Friend described it.
If it is, and if the Government have arrived at a nationally-determined core curriculum, could they not have saved themselves a great deal of trouble, and the House a great deal of time, if they had pursued their proposals in a different way, instead of refusing to consult teachers, local education authorities and parents? The Government had a unique opportunity to devise a nationally-agreed core curriculum, for which there was support from both major political parties, from the teachers' unions, and from parents. We now want to know whether the Minister has learnt from experience and agrees with us that this country needs a consensual, core curriculum for our children. That is the question that arises from these amendments.
We are still awaiting an indication from the Government of the national curriculum's detailed time scale. They still like to believe, and to create the image, that there is a national curriculum ready to be taken off the shelf and delivered to parents, to schools and to children. That is far from the case. We want to hear from the Minister what are the nature of the time scales.
We want to hear also how the Government will deliver the national curriculum. Where are the teachers? We now know that fewer and fewer youngsters are entering teacher training and that the Government will face acute embarassment in providing teachers of science and modern languages, and of other subjects as well. Where are those teachers to come from when we have a teaching profession that has been demoralised by the Government's actions?
Finally, we want to know where the money will come from for the national curriculum. Time and again, we have been told that it will be easy to finance, but the truth is that the Government are spending more money this year on


promoting CTCs than they are on promoting the national curriculum for all of our children. That is a measure of the Government's priorities.
When the Association of County Councils, which is not Labour led, told the Government that it needs £600 million of additional resources to implement the national curriculum, the Government responded not with money but with a deafening silence, which suggests that they have no interest in ensuring that our national curriculum is adequately resourced. The Government refused to give adequate time and resources to the GCSE examination, and thousands of children up and down the country have suffered as a result. Will they do the same with the national curriculum?
Finally, let me raise a question that has already been raised by a number of people outside the House. Reliable sources suggest that the teaching of the languages of the European Community and of Russian, Arabic, Japanese and Chinese will be acceptable for the national curriculum. The Joint Council of Language Associations has written to me, and, I suspect, to other members of the Standing Committee. The letter says:
We are worried about the discrimination implicit in the very idea of listing languages. The above proposals would mean, for example, that a child with an Italian or Chinese background would be perfectly entitled to continue the study of their language at school and achieve examination recognition, whereas one from an Indian background would not.
What have the Government in mind for foreign language teaching?
What has happened to the national curriculum in the Bill's passage through the House is an indication of the effective opposition led by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). That opposition has allowed us time after time to put forward constructive criticism of the Government's proposals. We have been able to show that the Government's initial approach was too prescriptive, too inflexible and simply unworkable. We welcome a new flexible approach and a greater reliance on teachers and their expertise.
The Government have learnt from Labour: they have learnt from our arguments and our criticisms. That learning process will not help the Secretary of State with some of his Back Benchers who wanted dogmatic, centralised control, and it may not help him with the Prime Minister, but it will certainly improve the national curriculum and the Bill. What now stands on the curriculum is a victory for the Opposition.

Mrs. Rumbold: There is nothing really new about the statements made by my colleague in another place about the national curriculum. It is obvious from what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has been saying that Opposition Members have been labouring under serious misapprehensions during all our debates. Let me make it clear that Lords amendment No. 39 was not a Government amendment. We believed that the Bill was clear in including the three core subjects among the 10 foundation subjects as set out in clause 3. But the point caused some discussion in Committee and in another place, and we are therefore happy for the clarification to be included in the Bill.
The amendment gives us an opportunity to consider the final shape of our national curriculum provisions as they have emerged from Parliament's consideration. They are, in essence, unchanged. The concept of a national

curriculum backed by statute has been generally accepted and, indeed, welcomed by all concerned, but there have certainly been some improvements as a result of extensive debate and consultations outside the House. The most important changes have increased the flexibility in the application of the curriculum. We debated many of the relevant issues in our earlier discussions on special educational needs, but we have seen off all attempts to increase flexibility to a point at which the curriculum's objectives would have been at risk. We have rejected the notion of schools opting out of a broad and balanced curriculum, and that of limiting the curriculum to a core of three subjects, which—as we have said on a number of occasions—would offer little improvement on the present position in schools.
We have secured a framework within which all pupils, of all abilities, can be treated in accordance with their needs—needs which will be much better identified as a result of the new assessment arrangements. Schools will continue to have the opportunity to offer pupils a range of additional subjects in their later secondary years, and there is no question of subjects being under threat because they do not form part of the national curriculum. All we are saying is that such subjects cannot replace the elements of the national curriculum.
11.15 pm
The national curriculum is therefore central to our policies for improving standards. The Bill sets the framework, and what matters now is that all concerned should work together to implement the best possible curriculum for all pupils. I have been encouraged that, as more has become known about our practical proposals—for example, acceptance of the main TGAT recommendations—the more they have been welcomed. They have been welcomed by the teaching profession, by parents and by the outside world generally. I am confident that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State puts the formal proposals on maths and science to the new National Curriculum Council next month, which will be based on the working group's final report, they, too, wall be recognised by all teachers as reflecting good practice and as helping, not constraining, the classroom teacher.
The NCC and SEAC are now established in shadow form. They are ready to get to grips with their important roles. The NCC is preparing to carry out the wide consultations that will be required on my right hon. Friend's statutory proposals. The timetable for this, and for the work on the assessment system that SEAC will carry out in parallel, is fairly tight, but I am confident that the new bodies will rise to the challenge.
We shall be keeping up the momentum, with a view to introducing the first programmes of study and attainment targets in September 1989 for maths, science and primary English. We shall also on that date require that pupils in the first three key stages are offered the full range of foundation subjects.
There is much to be done before September 1989 and thereafter as the national curriculum is implemented progressively for other subjects and age groups. We shall be keeping the education service and parents fully informed as the various requirements come on stream and helping the local education authorities and schools to meet their new responsibilities through the education support grants and in-service grants. But the next steps are very much in the hands of the local authorities, the schools and


the teachers who, I know, share our aim of offering a better education to all pupils. I hope that they will be prepared to seize the opportunity that we are offering them to do so much more effectively.
I was asked during an earlier debate about the relationship between TVEI and the national curriculum. TVEI does not embody a specific curriculum. It is about the delivery, through a wide range of curricular frameworks, of a practical approach to learning. It is true that, as its name implies, schools in particular that participate in TVEI will be expected to bring out the technical implications, where that is appropriate, but anybody who has had any contact with this initiative will know that it allows room for a broad range of approaches to the curriculum and that it is one of the reasons why it has been such an outstanding success.
As TVEI has developed, it has become increasingly clear that one cannot say that specified portions of the curriculum are or are not within the initiative. TVEI is something that, in the best examples, pervades the whole curriculum for pupils of all abilities.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that in a document entitled "Checklist for scrutinising proposals," by education authorities for the TVEI extension, two questions are posed for education authorities? They are asked whether the technology time slot is 10 per cent. in the entitlement of core curricula and whether there is a balanced science time slot of 20 per cent. in the entitlement of core curricula. Added together, they mean that the TVEI extension will lead to local authorities expecting 30 per cent. of the core curriculum to be devoted to technology and basic science. The Secretary of State has made the point that 70 per cent. is the limit to cover all foundation and core curriculum subjects. If that is so, how can teachers be expected to cram all the other subjects into the remaining 40 per cent.?

Mrs. Rumbold: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. The working groups are making recommendations to the National Curriculum Council on what is contained in science and technology and on the practicalities of what they consider, after a great deal of consultation, to be the right amount of time that shall be spent by children in schools on those subjects. Whatever has been said by other bodies, the definitive statement on that will come when the recommendations are made to my right hon. Friend by the National Curriculum Council.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has just made an important statement. May I assume that the Training Commission document, and particularly its checklist for scrutiny, has no real authority and certainly does not override the many other studies taking place with the National Curriculum Council and that it is not the definitive definition of how a TVEI scheme will be extended or how education authorities will qualify for those extensions?

Mrs. Rumbold: In relation to what happens with TVEI, what the Training Commission has suggested will obviously be considered by the working groups on science and technology, but that will not be the definitive statement. We shall have to wait until both those working groups have produced recommendations about the

amount of time that they consider to be right and proper for pupils to spend on those subjects in conjunction with the rest of the timetable that has to be set out for the national curriculum subjects and other subjects.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has raised a number of important points. Will the working parties be prescriptive on the amount of time in the school timetable to be taken on core subjects and on foundation subjects?

Mrs. Rumbold: The task of the working parties and the groups on specific subjects is to set out for the National Curriculum Council attainment targets and programmes of work that they suggest youngsters should be able to reach at specified times during their school careers. All those recommendations from the working parties will go to the National Curriculum Council, which will consult widely with teachers and others who have a legitimate interest before it comes back to my right hon. Friend, who will take into account those consultations, make his orders accordingly, go out to consultation yet again to make sure that the time recommended to be spent on specified subjects is right, and finally lay orders before the House.
That will allow the National Curriculum Council to continue to examine what is being taught, to update and progress the curriculum as it considers right, and to make proposals to my right hon. Friend, so that, if necessary, he can make amendments to what happens in schools.

Mr. Fatchett: I am interested in what the Minister says about how the procedures will work. I understand what she was saying about the consultation period, but she said that at the end of the consultation period the Secretary of State would decide how much time on the timetable would be necessary for each subject, taking into account the comments made by the working parties and after consultation. Will the Secretary of State be prescriptive in that way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No. The Secretary of State is unlikely to be in that position. It is not anticipated that there will be anything more than a broad outline of how much time youngsters will be expected to spend on certain subjects.
Clearly, one could go round this particular mulberry bush indefinitely, because in a school curriculum, as everyone well knows, periods are allocated each day throughout the school week for certain subjects. I anticipate that most children will have an English lesson, a maths lesson and a science lesson at least once a day during the week if they are satisfactorily to conclude the work that they will need to do to fulfil the terms of the national curriculum. Similarly, other subjects will require a certain amount of time, but not so much as the maths, English and science, and possibly one or two other subjects. However, at this stage it is not for me or my right hon. Friend to make suggestions, because we have not yet received the recommendations from the working groups and certainly the National Curriculum Council has not had an opportunity to make its recommendations.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has said that it is not a matter for her or for the Secretary of State. Therefore, it is certainly not a matter for the Training Commission. Will the Secretary of State write to the Training Commission to establish the authority and basis upon which the criteria are to be used? As I understand it, they are being used now to decide whether a TVEI extension scheme will be applied to an education authority.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman's worries are somewhat premature because the National Curriculum Council has not yet fully started its work. As soon as it is established, it will take on board the recommendations from the working parties. Nothing that the Training Commission may have suggested to schools can override the National Curriculum Council's conclusions. That must be the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman is looking.
I have been pressed, particularly by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, about teacher numbers. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about that. Pupil numbers in secondary schools are still declining. In England, secondary school numbers will fall by 280,000 between now and 1991. That constitutes a drop of 9 per cent. The recovery in numbers will he much slower than the fall. It will be the year 2000 before the current year's level of secondary school numbers is reached again. At present the ratio of pupils to teachers is at its lowest ever level, and it is still falling. Our expenditure plans are framed on the assumption that it will fall as low as 17:1. That will provide local education authorities with scope to redeploy teachers and to make the most effective use of the collective skills and expertise of the teaching force in order to prepare for and implement the national curriculum.
Some teachers will require further or new in-service training. We are preparing to make grants available in order to implement the possibility of teachers preparing for the specific requirements of the national curriculum.

Ms. Armstrong: The Minister talked about falling rolls. That will mean fewer children leaving school at 18 and training as teachers. There will be fewer people available for recruitment. How can the Government estimate how many teachers they need, given that there is now such confusion about the amount of time that will be spent on each subject? How can the Government reassure parents and children that there will be sufficient teachers to be trained to deliver the curriculum?

Mrs. Rumbold: The confusion is confined to the hon. Lady's mind. Falling rolls will have a considerable effect on the availability of teachers for retraining or for returning to the subject in which they were first trained. It is well known that there are some teachers, particularly in our secondary schools, who are not teaching their first discipline. It is also true that demographic changes will have some effect on the recruitment of people into teaching. It is for that reason that we have taken steps to undertake high profile recruitment at universities and among those who might return to teaching. It is also why my right hon. Friend has suggested that there may be a new form of teachers with licensed-teacher status to ensure that our children are provided with the best teaching force available.
Under the orders listing foreign languages we can provide that a child cannot satisfy the national curriculum requirement by studying his or her mother language. We have not yet set up the working party on foreign languages. It will be for that working party to take into consideration the matter that has been raised with me.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: When considering the supply of teachers, will my hon. Friend also consider the supply of ancillary staff and technicians, who are just as important for the successful teaching of subjects?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes an important point about ancillary staff—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Lords amendment No. 39 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 53, 55 to 67 and 69 to 88 agreed to.

Clause 104

FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO HIGHER AND FURTHER EDUCATION

Lords amendment: No. 266, in page 102, line 4, leave out "subsection (3) below" and insert
the following provisions of this section

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 267, in page 102, line 6, leave out from "education" to "and" in line 8 and insert
for persons over compulsory school age (including vocational, social, physical and recreational training);

Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'training', insert 'and adult education'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add
'in association with the provision of youth service facilities'.

Lords amendment No. 268, in page 102, leave out line 1 and insert—
(2A) In this Act 'further education' does not include higher education.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add
'but does include adult education'.

Amendments Nos. 269 to 271.

Mr. Jackson: The amendments relate to higher and further education, and the most important are those tabled by the Opposition on adult education and that tabled by the Government, which provides for statutory subcommittees of the Universities Funding Council for Scotland and Wales.
The Government were defeated in the other place on amendment No. 292, which required the UFC to establish an advisory sub-committee for Scotland. We continue to believe that such a provision is not necessary because a committee for this purpose would have been established. In view of the strength of feeling expressed in the House and the other place, we are prepared to give statutory expression to a Scottish committee and, because the arguments are similar, to a Welsh committee. That is the purpose of the Government's amendment.
At several stages during the Bill's passage it has been suggested that the Bill does not do enough for adult education and that specific references to adult education should be inserted in the Bill. The amendments now proposed to Lords amendments Nos. 267 and 268 have the same purpose. The Government do not oppose those amendments—I emphasise this most strongly—out of a feeling that adult education is not important; quite the


contrary. The Government set great value by adult education. It provides many people up and down the country with enormous benefit and pleasure.
The Government recognise the value and importance of adult education, but that does not necessarily mean that there is a need to make specific mention of adult education in the Bill in the way the amendments to the Lords amendments propose. Further education is already defined to include adult education. Clause 104, as amended in the other place, defines further education as including all full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age other than higher education. In this, it follows closely the 1944 Act. Further education is not defined as being only for 16 to 19-year-olds, or only for those up to the age of 21. It is for all those over the age of 16.
It has been suggested that, because there is no specific mention of adult education in the Bill, there is therefore no statutory duty on LEAs to provide adult education. That concern is misplaced. The duty which clause 104 places on LEAs is to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education as a whole. It therefore already carries within it a duty to secure adequate facilities for further education for adults. Adult education is already part of the statutory system of education, and has been since the 1944 Act.
There is a problem about definitions. Clause 104 defines what is meant by "further education" and "higher education." If we were to make specific reference to adult education in the Bill, we would first have to define it, because it would be different from further or higher education. That would get us into difficulties. At what age exactly is someone to become an adult for the purposes of these amendments? What sort of courses does adult education include? Does it include a middle-aged man on a professional, industrial and commercial updating programme course updating his skills in engineering? Does it include literacy and numeracy provision? Does it refer only to non-vocational liberal evening classes? I guess that we could find the term used in all those senses and more.
We all recognise the value of adult education, but it would be a great mistake to believe that by inserting references to adult education in the Bill in the way that these Opposition amendments suggest we would in some sense be supporting adult education. I have to say bluntly that we would not. The sort of amendments that have been proposed would do adult education no favours at all. They would only introduce confusion and divisions where none now exist. I therefore hope that they will be withdrawn.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the fact that the Minister was allowed to refer to Lords amendment No. 292 and amendment (c) thereto. We are glad that the Government have bowed to all the pressures to establish in statute a Welsh and a Scottish sub-committee. That is an important concession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before I hear too many cheers from the Opposition, especially from Scottish Members, I point out that it would have been helpful if the Minister had told us a little about Scottish loans. There must be people in Scottish universities who have four-year degrees and who are fearful that the introduction of a loans scheme will discriminate against universities that offer four-year courses in favour of those that offer three-year courses. I

am sure that Scottish Members would have preferred to hear not just that there is to be a Scottish sub-committee but that there is to be a guarantee of resources for that sub-committee to allocate, especially to many of the hard-pressed universities in Scotland, and a guarantee that a student loans scheme will not discriminate against them.
Like the Minister, I had better move on and return to amendments Nos. 266 and 267—the first to be considered in this short debate—and to adult education. It is extremely disappointing that, every time Labour Members—whether in Committee, on Report or in the other place—have argued for adult education, the Government have come out with the lame excuse that further education includes adult education. We would have had much more sympathy for the Government's view if they had talked about the necessary resources.
Because adult education and the youth service—another aspect that the Government have resisted doing anything about in the Bill—get little mention in legislation, far too many local authorities and the Government feel that it is not important to allocate resources to them. The House should spell out the fundamental importance of adult education and the youth service if we want high-quality education for all. If we want to ensure the future prosperity of this country, we must spell out to people that education should not finish at 16 or 19. We must offer the educational opportunities to them throughout their lives.
If we want Britain to be a peaceful country and a democracy, we should spell out the educational opportunities. We should accept that if we want to give people more than just a token of a vote, we must give them skills, knowledge and the ability to use information to make choices. We must encourage people to have the self-confidence to put their points of view. If we want Britain to be a democracy, good, adequate adult education for the whole community is fundamental. If we want to give people the opportunity to enjoy their leisure, we must look at the opportunities provided through good adult education.
Many hon. Members wanted to talk about the need for religious education in schools. Surely every adult has the right to think about his or her existence and to develop an understanding of the universe. The opportunity to do that should not be restricted to the fortunate few who go on to higher education; it ought to be available to everyone. We should all be able to thirst after and obtain knowledge and be able to use it. We should make it clear in the Bill that we want to give people the opportunity to enjoy good-quality adult education.
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to put the arguments about adult education and about higher education in Scotland and Wales, so I shall conclude by suggesting to the Government that the failure to have a statutory youth service means that the money is not provided. Given that we do not provide the money, it is not surprising that we have so many disaffected young people who end up behaving destructively rather than constructively. The Government should accept that if they fail to provide the resources to channel youthful energies into useful activities, they will bear a great deal of the responsibility for that.
In this short debate, we should record our regret that the Government have not committed themselves to providing any resources. In this respect, as in so many others, the Gerbil ends up as a great evasion of


Government responsibility. Opposition Members regard the Bill as a wasted opportunity. The Government have failed to address the problems of expanding education and youth opportunities. They have failed to provide resources for higher education. They should have spent far more time examining resources rather than advancing sterile arguments such as the one that we have just heard from the Minister, who suggests that the further education provisions are a simple way of including adult education and says that that is all that he has to offer the adult education lobby.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I pay tribute to my hon. Friends, both here and in another place, for succeeding in forcing the Government to concede this very important principle. We in Scotland greatly welcome the setting up of a separate sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. That is a tremendous victory, but a word of caution is needed because I fear that even a separate sub-committee in Scotland will have minimal impact without proper resources.
As recently as 28 June my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I tabled a motion commenting on the grave threat posed to Scottish universities by Government underfunding and by a £12·5 million cut in recurrent grant since 1986. We pointed out that Scottish universities faced deficits totalling £5·5 million. In Edinburgh, the deficit is £3 million; in Aberdeen, £1 million; in Dundee, £312,000. Glasgow university has a deficit of £500,000, as does Heriot-Watt, while Stirling has a deficit of £300,000 this year.
The sad fact is that up to 500 academic posts are threatened. That has a horrific impact on the university in our capital city, which is threatened with the loss of 170 posts by the end of the decade. At Aberdeen university the situation is hardly less serious. The number of jobs threatened—academic posts alone—is 130. Across in the west of Scotland, Strathclyde university is threatened with the loss of 56 academic posts; at Dundee, 45 posts are threatened; at St. Andrew's 39 and at Stirling, 25. At Glasgow and Heriot-Watt, too, posts are severely threatened.
Such cuts threaten the viability of Scottish universities and with departments such as that of the international Soviet expert, John Erickson, at Edinburgh threatened with cuts, the impact is severe. It is ironic that, having had four universities at a time when England had only two, Scotland should now be faced with such severe cuts. I welcome the creation by this amendment of the sub-committee, which will highlight and, I hope, go some way to protect Scottish universities.
11.45 pm
Today, I received a letter from a doctor in the Edinburgh school of agriculture. The letter sets out why we need a properly resourced sub-committee. It says:
The treatment by the Department of Education and Science of University Staff, postgraduate students and of Universities in general, is extremely worrying. It bodes ill for the future of science-based industries in the UK … The result has been that even those of us who have strong scientific groups have very great difficulty in attracting applicants … The treatment of Universities such as Edinburgh which are successful in obtaining research grants and contracts is

deplorable. The more successful we are, the more we are effectively penalised … Despite the early US lead in Biotechnology, which is in part my own area of expertise, the UK has made many notable advances. If the present disregard for science continues, we shall be unable to maintain any momentum in developing new technology etc. in this area. In the longer term, the effect on cur balance of payments and on our general science base can only be disastrous.
It does not stop there. On Saturday, the principal of Edinburgh university, Sir David Smith, warned new graduates that Government plans to strip the UGC of responsibility to train doctors and to transfer them to Government health departments threatened the very basis of the training of doctors, which would become separated from the advancement of medical knowledge and research, which is a key function of universities.
The universities in Scotland, and elsewhere, have taken a hammering from the Government. The public, w ho believe in university education, have seen any faith they might have had in the Government betrayed. I began by saying that this is an important victory. Let us hope that it is not a Pyhrric victory.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Because of the shortness of time, I shall be brief, especially as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who is my namesake and is also left-handed—we have a lot in common—has shown that, while we welcome the Government's response to pressure put on in this House and in the other place to have a separate sub-committee for Wales and Scotland, we feel that they are ungracious in the way that they are conceding this to us, saying that it is not necessary.
The way in which the cuts have been administered to the universities on the Celtic fringe shows, without going into details of the Welsh universities, that the reduction in funding in Wales was marginally worse than the reduction in funding in Scotland. In each of the Welsh universities there is a trail of destruction and cuts, with the prospect of 400 to 500 further job losses as a result of inadequate funding. I hope that the separate sub-committee for Wales will result in a return to extra attention being paid to the resources that are desparately needed for higher education in Wales.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly that the amendment is welcome. However, is it not important that this sub-committee has teeth, and the resources necessary to do the job? If it is only window dressing, it will not be enough. It is important that we see a change in policy that gives the University of Wales new hope.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman echoes the sentiments of myself and of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South. I hope that the Government will be able to provide more funding for the universities on the Celtic fringe.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In a article sent to us by the vice-chancellors, the Minister's political friend, Professor Beloff, describes the Minister as lecturing the universities on Gibbonian slothfulness. During those lectures, did the Minister ask whether the funding councils or any sub-committee would be able to do anything to mitigate the pressure now that universities have to pay off many senior, experienced members of staff? Many of us have great reason to be grateful to often elderly teachers at


universities who, under the present set-up, will have their services dispensed with. Will the funding councils be able to tackle that problem?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like other hon. Members for the Celtic nations—unlike the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I refer not to the Celtic fringe, but to the Celtic nations—we welcome amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 292 because the establishment of sub-committees of the UFC for Wales and Scotland recognises not only our distinctive cultures, histories and education systems, but the innovations and challenges that lie ahead for our universities in Wales and Scotland. We welcome that very much.
As an hon. Member who spoke on Report for a UFC for Scotland, I particularly welcome the extension of the idea to Wales. Here I wish to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) who served as a member of the Committee and put forward a strong argument.
It was interesting to note that the Minister, in his opening remarks, said that the Government had thought that it was not necessary to write in specific sub-committees for Scotland and Wales, but they opposed it when the amendment was passed in another place. One wonders why they are now conceding. Is there a firm commitment behind the Government's concession tonight'? That is what worries me. When we talk about advisory committees, I am worried that the Government may be paying lip service to the idea of Scotland and Wales having separate organisations. For example, what would be the role of the advisory committees in the problem that now faces Dundee in its fight to retain its dental school? Would it be overruled by the UFC? Would the committee have any strength in its arguments? That particular closure was described by Principal Hamlin at the graduation ceremony last weekend as "a scandal".
I think also of the threat to Aberdeen university, which serves my region of Grampian, where six departments and 150 academic jobs are under threat. What would be the role of an advisory committee representing Scottish interests? We do not want to see ourselves, either in Scotland or Wales, being placed in a subsidiary position whereby lip service is paid to the idea of consultation and advice, but numerical strength overrules that at the end of the day.
The Government must make it clear that this is more than a concession in the context of listening to what one or two people might say, ensuring that the sub-committees in Scotland and Wales have genuine strength and can argue the case for their universities on a geographical, research and development, cultural, historic and educational basis. They must not be dismissed as being peripheral; they must reflect the demand for national recognition.
It has always seemed strange to me that the universities in Scotland have been separated from the rest of the education system. We firmly believe that they should be integrated. Until such time as we can achieve that, I wish to hear a clear commitment from the Government tonight that advisory does not mean dismissive, but means that strength will be given to our representatives to ensure that the well-being of our universities is safeguarded.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Those of my colleagues who have managed to catch your eye in this short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have laid great stress on the fact that there is no point in the Government's claiming that they intended to make a concession, which was then forced on them in another place following a debate which began in this House, if the bodies set up for Scotland and Wales are denied the ability to exercise their functions due to lack of finance.
With all due respect to my colleagues in Wales, I believe that in Scotland the differences in the university system are so great as to require a full and clear statement from the Minister today that due regard will be given to the special features of the Scottish system. In all the discussions that Labour Members in Scotland have had with the University Grants Committee it has come over loud and clear that the UGC does not appreciate the significant difference in the four-year courses of Scottish universities. Unless the Minister makes a clear statement today that he recognises that and will ensure that it is taken on board by the UGC, the special advisory council for Scotland will not mean a great deal.
My hon. Friends have referred to the severe cuts suffered by Scottish universities, especially Stirling, Aberdeen and Dundee. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) had managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he would have made it clear that Aberdeen university will continue to face difficulties unless the UGC and the Minister accept the plans that it has submitted. Dundee university in my constituency is also anxiously waiting to hear whether its plans will be accepted by the UGC so that it can start to plan not just for the year ahead but beyond that into the 1990s.
This has been a useful debate, but unless the Minister makes it clear that the proposed bodies will not be merely advisory but will be supported by real powers, the concessions will not mean much to universities in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made much of resources for adult education. Local education authority spending on adult education has been rising steadily. On the national level, the Government have shown a strong commitment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much?

Mr. Jackson: We are spending directly almost £30 million this financial year in support of initiatives for updating and for the adult unemployed. Our plans for next year include specific grant for expenditure by English local authorities totalling nearly £6 million for the expansion of educational guidance services for adults, for adult literacy schemes and for open learning opportunities. The hon. Gentleman confuses words in a Bill with the reality that resources are being provided on an extensive scale. We do not defer to the hon. Gentleman in any way in our commitment to adult education.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Jackson: I have no time to give way. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for something further on that.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned an article in which my noble Friend Lord Beloff referred to "Gibbonian slothfulness". I found the adjective


strange in that context as Gibbon was certainly not slothful. He completed "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will have to live within the means that are provided. Those means will be generous. Britain spends a higher proportion of its national product on education than any other western European country. The institutions that will come under the umbrella of the funding councils will have to live within the means that are provided. Hon. Members have mentioned the funding councils and the sub-committees for Scotland and Wales. I am grateful to the Opposition for the congratulations that they offered to the Government for our graceful concession about the establishment of the sub-committees. We always accepted that they would be set up.

It being Twelve o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Lords amendment No. 266 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 292 disagreed to.

Amendment (c) made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to, in page 191, line 23, at end insert—

`Scottish and Welsh Committees of Universities Funding Council

9A. The Universities Funding Council shall establish committees under paragraph 9 above for the purpose of advising the Council on the exercise of their functions in relation to universities in Scotland and universities in Wales, respectively.'.

Lords amendments Nos. 271 and 291 agreed to.

[Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 267 to 270, 273, 274 and 276 to 290 agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

To be further considered this day.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1988 General Capital Increase) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Paul Cleeland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. John Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate about a miscarriage of justice. I should like to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the case of the brother of one of my constituents, Paul Cleeland, who was committed to prison 16 years ago after being convicted of shooting a friend, Mr. Terry Clarke. Mr. Clarke was shot dead while he was returning home with his wife in their Jaguar. Clarke was shot first in the back and then in the chest. His wife did not recognise the killer. She thought the killer was 5 ft 8 in and dark, whereas Paul Cleeland, the accused, was 6 ft and fair.
The case was fraught with irregularities from the outset. Paul Cleeland took the unusual step of dismissing his barrister who, in Cleeland's opinion, was not critical enough. He went on to conduct his own case. It was a complex case with many contradictions, and much of the evidence put forward by the police was discredited much later. The police attested at one stage through witnesses who were known criminals that they had sold the murder gun to Paul Cleeland. That later was conclusively refuted and it was established in fact that they had given it to the murdered man.
The whole complicated process went through a trial and a retrial at which Paul Cleeland was found guilty. That disturbed many people who had followed the case, as much of the evidence had never been fully pursued. These disturbing facts have had the attention of many people who followed the case, people such as newspaper reporters and politicians, and they have requested the Home Office to carry out a further review and redress what they believe was an unjust conviction. Until that is brought about, it means that a murderer walks free and has been free for 16 years while Paul Cleeland languishes in gaol.
The most recent representation of a lengthy period of representation was made by Paul Cleeland in petition form. Because of the limitations of time I shall put before the House a condensed version of that petition. On 11 March, 1986, PA Stanton, C3 division criminal department, informed B. M. Brimburgh and Co. that he was in receipt of a petition submitted by Jonathan Caplan, QC on behalf of Mr. Paul Cleeland. The petition was supported by written statements from an analytical consultant chemist, Dr. Grant., and a firearms specialist, J. G. J. Rothery. The brief of Mr. Rothery was to examine the murder gun, to establish the validity of the evidence concerning the shot pattern that was used to convict Paul Cleeland, and to comment on the shot penetration.
The tests were carried out in the presence of inspector Ratcliffe, Mr. J. McCafferty, Mr. R. Jennings, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Stevens. Inspector Ratcliffe provided the dead man's jacket and the weapon which Mr. McCafferty, the trial forensic witness, claimed was the murder weapon. A n examination of the jacket established that the shot pattern matched the wounds on the dead man's body. Internal measurements of the internal bores of the gun established that, when fired at the same distance, they would produce the same size pattern. The tests were carried out in a manner conducive to the circumstances that existed when the murder took place. At their conclusion Mr. Rothery


stated that if the firearm that he had tested had been fired 18 ft from the victim, as described by the prosecution forensic witness, Mr. McCafferty, far more damage would have been done to the car and to the back of the victim. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that, if the gun that he tested was the murder weapon, it was fired from a distance in excess of 38 ft. Alternatively, if the range was 18 ft, the gun that he tested was not the murder weapon. Mr. Rothery's statement was that if a frontal shot was fired at a distance of 18 ft, as attested by the forensic witness, Mr. McCafferty, material from the cartridge wadding would have remain affixed to the victim's jacket.
There is much conflicting evidence. Mr. Rothery's tests established conclusively that the firearm which was defined as the murder weapon by the prosecution in the trial was not used to kill the victim. That positive declaration was further endorsed by tests conducted by R. H. Jennings and Dr. Rufus Crompton, who Dr. Grant referred to in his statement. In that statement he draws attention to the alarming major discrepancies of 18 to 20 ft between the distances calculated by the prosecution forensic witness, Mr. McCafferty, and the distances calculated by the other three firearm specialists. Dr. Grant also refers to erroneous prison records, which were admitted by the prison authorities. There are five falsified records for which the Home Office has never given an explanation. This is important information. It is of such major significance as to warrant a reopening of the Paul Cleeland case.
There is more information which raises many doubts about the creditability of Paul Cleeland's conviction. It defines emphatically that a miscarriage of justice took place. As well as the tests on the guns having been contradictory, there was more police information which comes under the same classification. There is information that two days after the murder one police officer stated that he had delivered the murder weapon to a police laboratory. In contradiction, another officer swears that on the same day he had the murder weapon 30 miles away, taking photographs of it and cartridges. Both officers have stuck to their stories.
There is also the evidence of particles of lead on Paul Cleeland's clothes that was used to convict Paul Cleeland. That forensic evidence would not be accepted now. It has no credence as it failed to differentiate between environmental contamination and lead from firearm residue.
Many of those who have followed the case, and specialists referred to in Dr. Grant's report, have discredited the prosecution evidence. They have proven that Mr. McCafferty was not qualified to act as a prosecution forensic expert at Paul Cleeland's trial or any other trial as an expert for the department of public prosecution.
That important qualification was not attained through the generous committed co-operation of the prison authorities, the judiciary or the Home Office—quite the opposite. It would never have been brought to light but for the tenacity of Paul Cleeland and newspaper reporters who assisted him. Their endeavours eventually sparked an inquiry conducted by assistant chief constable Boothby whose report was finalised just prior to 1979. In normal circumstances, that report would have affirmed that Paul Cleeland was guilty or that his case should be reopened or,

most importantly, it would have questioned the competency of the forensic witness Mr. McCafferty and most alarmingly bring into question the justice of every sentence passed at every trial at which McCafferty had given evidence.
That report would bring to light the fact that innocent people had been convicted unjustly. For example, James Hanratty was hanged for a murder which many people believe involved MI5. The suppression of the report in addition to covering up the incompetence of Mr. McCafferty also covers up the inadequacies of the judiciary and the police. It has the most serious implications because over time the people involved have moved on to more esteemed positions to make bigger errors. As serious as the consequences may be for those individuals, the report must be made available to the public in the interests of Paul Cleeland.
Paul Cleeland's circumstances demand publication as the injustice surrounding his trial has been compounded by his treatment in prison where he has fought against attempts to certify him as insane and attempts to administer drugs to him. He has been threatened like a political prisoner in Russia. He has been forced to fight the prison authorities at every step, otherwise he would have suffered the same fate as Des Warren, a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, who, following the building workers' strike in 1973, was forced to take habit-forming drugs in prison—a tranquilising medication known to prisoners as the liquid cosh. That medication was addictive and left Des Warren with severe health problems for which the Home Office has accepted responsibility.
But for the strength of character of Paul Cleeland, that would have been his fate. He too would have finished up a malleable prisoner offering no problems to the prison authorities or threatening the stability of the police or judicial hierarchy who were involved in the trial and many, many more—even MI5.
The three Home Secretaries who many people have approached to make available the report on Paul Cleeland's case have failed to do so. Tonight I add my name to the list of people who have made that request. If people are locked up, they should be properly in prison for the crime that they have committed. In Paul Cleeland's case, many questions remain unanswered. If it is simply a question of guilt or innocence because of evidence, the last word has not been said in this case.
The circumstances surrounding the case demand that the report produced by Mr. Boothby be made available. The whole concept of justice demands that. There is no greater sin against humanity than the detention of an innocent man in gaol for 16 years. That sin against humanity is of a greater magnitude if anyone at ministerial level deliberately withholds a report that would prove an individual was innocent because publishing it would incriminate important people or Government Departments. Because of the irrefutable evidence—

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in relation to the prosecution case that he has outlined so well in his argument, there is a need for a judicial review of Paul Cleeland's case even though the Minister will almost certainly say that he cannot reveal the report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? A judicial report would go over all the evidence. Mrs. Shirley Williams and I have pursued that aim for


some time. I have pursued it since 1979 and Mrs. Williams since before that, when she represented Hertford and Stevenage. We believe that that is the right way to proceed for justice to be seen to be done in the Paul Cleeland case.

Mr. Hughes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I agree that a judicial review would assist Paul Cleeland. Nevertheless, I still believe that the Home Secretary should make the Boothby report available. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who is in the Chamber, has also been asked by my constituent to support that representation.
Because of the irrefutable evidence and substantial fresh issues in this case, the question cannot be asked too many times: in the interests of justice, will the Home Secretary make the Boothby report available to enable a just assessment to be made and a judicial review to be undertaken?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I have a relatively short time in which to reply to the complex case marshalled by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes). I agree with him that there can be nothing worse than the wrongful imprisonment of someone convicted of a crime that he or she did not commit. I wish to assure both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), to whose intervention I listened with great attention, that the Home Office exercises considerable care in examining alleged miscarriages of justice. That is a tradition that goes back to the days when we had the death penalty in this country, and when the greatest and most scrupulous care needed to be taken by all who advised the Home Secretary of the day.
I listened with considerable care to everything that was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, and I shall read and carefully reflect upon his remarks, as I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestion of a judicial review, but I thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East was wrong to suggest that any prisoner in this country is treated like a political prisoner in Russia. That does not help the hon. Gentleman's case, and when he reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow he may reflect that that remark does not help his case.
There are a number of threads to this complex case, which has been subject to continuous public scrutiny by a number of former and present hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has done so much in this case.
It may be best if I begin by summarising the basic facts. Mr. Cleeland was convicted at St. Alban's Crown court on 25 June 1973 of the murder of Terence Clarke, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. That was on a second trial, when the jury's verdict was unanimous. Mr. Cleeland subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against his conviction. That application was refused on 26 February 1976.
It is important that the circumstances of the offence are before the House tonight. Mr. and Mrs. Clarke were returning home with a friend in the early hours of the morning of 5 November 1972, in Stevenage. As Mr. Clarke got out of his car, he was fired at twice and fatally wounded by a man with a shotgun, who had presumably lain in wait for him. Neither Mrs. Clarke nor the car passenger was able to identify the assailant, but at the

scene police found distinctive wadding of a kind used in a particular make of cartridge known as Blue Rival. I am advised that the wadding used is particularly distinctive and allows clear identification.
Later that day, 5 November 1972, in the same area children found a shotgun containing two expended cartridges and, lying nearby, a discarded box of unused Blue Rival cartridges. Later, tests carried out by Mr. McCafferty of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory established that the Blue Rival cartridges, when fired from the abandoned shotgun found by the children, produce firemarks matching those on the spent cartridges found with it. Those were important findings. Further police inquiries produced a number of witnesses whose evidence linked Mr. Cleeland with the acquisition of both the shotgun and the cartridges shortly before the murder took place. The forensic evidence was formidable.
Mr. Cleeland's defence at his trial was based on an alibi produced by his wife for the night in question, on evidence from another ballistics expert and on allegations against police officers concerned with the case and against prosecution witnesses, some of whom had criminal records—as both prosecution and defence witnesses sometimes have. In effect, the defence amounted to an allegation of conspiracy, probably by quite a large number of people, against Mr. Cleeland.
It was not for Ministers of the day to decide on the facts of the case, any more than it would be if Mr. Cleeland were coming to trial now in a similar case. It was for the jury to decide, on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence, whether the charge against Mr. Cleeland was proved. I think it is fair to say that, by their verdict, the one notion that they did reject was the notion of any kind of conspiracy mounted against Mr. Cleeland by the authorities, to which, on the face of it, it seems very hard to give credence.
Quite properly, from his point of view, Mr. Cleeland applied for leave to appeal against his conviction. The main element in his case was the evidence of a Mr. Michael Nash. Mr. Nash had for some time occupied a cell near Mr. Cleeland's at Stevenage police station, where the prosecution alleged that Mr. Cleeland had an incriminating conversation with a fellow prisoner. Mr. Cleeland maintained that the conversation never took place, and Mr. Nash supported him.
It later came to light that a visit by a Mr. Russell to Mr. Cleeland in Wandworth prison had been wrongly recorded there as a meeting between Mr. Cleeland and Mr. Nash. That error, if left unremedied, would have fostered the suspicion that the two men had colluded over the evidence to be given at the appeal hearing. However, the Home Office prison department eventually established that mistakes had been made and corrected Mr. Cleeland's record accordingly. The Criminal Appeal Office was informed by the Home Office by letter on 8 January 1976 of what had occurred, and was left in no doubt that the Home Office accepted that there had been no prison visit to Mr. Cleeland by Mr. Nash.
In rejecting Mr. Nash's evidence, the Court of Appeal referred to an attempt—I quote from the judgment—by
cunning criminals getting together to concoct a specious if, on the face of it, credible story to discredit the police.
In reaching that conclusion, the court took account of Mr. Nash's credibility as a witness and of the circumstances in which he came to be giving his evidence. The court made it clear that the error disclosed in the Home Office letter


had no bearing on the outcome of Mr. Cleeland's appeal. It was accepted that the two men had not met face to face in Wandsworth prison. The court held—I think that this is important, because of the slight mystique of conspiracy that still surrounds the case—that
there was not a shred of evidence that either the Home Office or Prison Department were conspiring with the police.
Meanwile, in July 1975 Mr. Cleeland made a complaint to the police alleging perjury by police officers concerned with his case. Subsequently he raised further complaints, which led to the setting up of an inquiry under section 49 of the Police Act 1964. At the request of the chief constable of Hertfordshire, the investigation into Mr. Cleeland's complaints was conducted by the then assistant chief constable of Northamptonshire, Mr. Boothby. After a lengthy investigation, during which the police were allowed full access to Mr. Cleeland's prison records, Mr. Boothby produced a thorough and extensive report, on the basis of which the Director of Public Prosecutions decided in November 1979 that there was no evidence to justify any criminal proceedings against any person named in the report.
Subsequently the report was passed to the Home Office to see whether it revealed any matters that might have affected the safety of Mr. Cleeland's conviction. It was concluded that there would be no justification in recommending any interference with the decision of the courts in his case.
The release of the police report has been raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, and I dare say the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who is also in the Chamber, supports his hon. Friend, in view of his interest in the case. It is a long-established principle that has effectively been accepted not just by successive Home Secretaries in this Administration but by successive Home Secretaries and Governments that police reports are confidential and are not made public—and never have been—either in whole or in part. The maintenance of that principle is crucial in ensuring full and frank communication between police officers themselves and between chief officers of police and the Home Secretary of the day. Many reports of investigations conducted by the police contain information that should not be disclosed freely, such as allegations and statements made to the police and facts disclosed in the course of an investigation that could be prejudicial to named persons. Such information always has been treated as confidential, partly on the ground that nobody should have a crime publicly imputed to him, except in court. That is what the release of many police reports of all sorts would consistently do. It is also treated as confidential partly to preserve the confidentiality of the investigations.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford may rest assured that both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), have carefully considered Mr. Boothby's report

and can find nothing in its conclusions to suggest that it provides evidence that is supportive of Mr. Cleeland's claims. If it had, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not have hesitated to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, as he has done on other occasions.
Whatever might be said by those who feel that Mr. Cleeland has been wrongfully convicted, I can say that since his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal hardly a year has passed, apart from the last 12 months, without some consideration having been given to the case. I understand that the interest of the former Member for Hertford and Stortford, Mrs. Shirley Williams, dates from 1974, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who is here, has pursued the case since he succeeded Mrs. Williams in 1979 as the Member of Parliament for the constituency. Both have discussed the case with successive Home Office Ministers, and over the years there has been considerable correspondence between the parties.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East has read the report of the debate in the House on 29 April 1982. There have been representations from solicitors acting on Mr. Cleeland's behalf and from Mr. Cleeland himself. On each occasion detailed and careful consideration has been given to the case as a whole and to the individual points that were raised. Of course, my right hon. Friend and I will reflect on the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East in exactly the same way.
There has not at any stage been any delay in the way in which the examination has been carried out. Mr. Cleeland's allegations have been given the most exhaustive consideration and nothing so far has come to light to support his claim that his conviction resulted from perjury, collusion or faults in the forensic evidence to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East has referred.
The exhaustive nature of the considerations is demonstrated by a long and detailed memorandum prepared by Home Office officials last year and sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford at that time. I shall certainly make a copy available to the hon. Members for Coventry, North-East and for Coventry, South-East, and I shall also place a copy in the Library of the House, because it is an important document.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is always ready to make a reference under section 17 to the Court of Appeal when he considers that there are grounds for doing so. The House will know that my right hon. Friend has not hesitated to do so in notable cases in the past year or so, but none of the matters raised so far tonight, including those put so clearly and in such detail by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, seem to me at this stage to provide grounds for departing from the view already taken by my right hon. Friend about this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.